LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
RIVERSIDE 


PARLIAMENTARY  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND 
FROM  1885  TO  1918 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  XCVI]  [Number  2 

Whole  Number  218 


PARLIAMENTARY  FRANCHISE  REFORM 
IN  ENGLAND  FROM  1885  TO  1918 


BY 

HOMER  LAWRENCE  MORRIS,  Ph.D. 


Nero  Dork 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

SALE  AGENTS 

NEW  YORK  :  LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  Co. 
LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  ft  SON,  LTD. 
TQ2I 


COPYRIGHT,  1921 

BY 
HOMER  LAWRENCE  MORRIS 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 9 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  BETWEEN  1855 

AND  1909 14 

General  Election  of  1906 15 

Pluring  Voting  Bill  of  1906      17 

Election  and  Registration  Bill  (London),  1908 24 

London  Election  Bill  of  1909 26 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  ...  28 

The  beginning  of  Parliamentary  Agitation 29 

Slack's  Women's  Suffrage  Bill  of  1905 32 

The  beginning  of  the  Militant  Movement 34 

Dickinson's  Women's  Enfranchisement  Bill  of  1907 42 

Stanger's  Women's  Enfranchisement  Bill  of  1908 46 

Deputation  to  Mr.  Asquith       .    .           49 

Howard's  Adult  Franchise  Bill  of  1909 53 

General  Election  of  January,  1910 56 

CHAPTER  IV 

WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  BECOMES  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  ...  60 

Conciliation  Bill  of  1910 61 

General  Election  of  December,  1910 69 

Kemp's  Conciliation  Bill  of  1911 70 

Negotiation  for  Government  Facilities 72 

Announcement  of  the  Reform  Bill 76 

Agg-Gardner's  Conciliation  Bill  of  1912 81 

211]  5 


6  CONTENTS  [212 

.  PAGE 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912     .  .  85 

The  Franchise  and  Registration  Bill  in  the  House  of  Commons.   .  86 

The  Withdrawal  of  the  Bill 95 

CHAPTER  VI 

ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN  IN  1913  AND  1914  .   .  103 

Dickinson's  Women's  Suffrage  Bill  of  1913 105 

Militancy  in  1914 109 

CHAPTER  VII 

ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  IN  1913  AND  1914.  .  113 

Plural  Voting  Bill  of  1913 114 

London  Election  Bill  of  1913 116 

Plural  Voting  Bill  of  1914  ....••...              117 

CHAPTER  VIII 

EMERGENCY  PARLIAMENTARY  AND  REGISTRATION  LEGISLATION  .  120 

Parliament  and  Registration  Act  of  1916 120 

Select  Committee  of  1916 122 

Special  Registration  Bill 125 

CHAPTER  IX 

REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918 128 

Conference  on  Electoral  Reform 129 

Resolutions  of  Conference  Presented  to  Commons 132 

Representation  of  the  People  Bill  of  1917 134 

Parliamentary  Franchise  for  Men 136 

University  Franchise  for  Men      139 

Local  Government  Franchise  for  Men 140 

Women's  Suffrage 143 

Franchise  Qualifications  for  Women 145 

Special  Provisions  for  Persons  in  War  Service 150 

Qualifying  Period.                      .   .              152 

The  Question  of  Plural  Voting 153 

Provisions  as  to  Disqualifications 157 

Registration       159 

Expenses  of  Registration 161 

Proportional  Representation 162 

Alternative  Voting 164 


213]                                      CONTENTS  7 

PAGE 

Polls  to  be  held  on  one  day  at  a  General  Election 167 

Penalty  for  Illegal  Voting 168 

Voting  by  Absent  Electors 169 

Deposit  by  Candidates  at  Parliamentary  Elections 171 

Returning  Officers 171 

Election  Expenses 172 

Application  of  Bill  to  Ireland 174 

Application  of  Bill  to  Scotland 176 

Redistribution 177 

Proportional  Representation 180 

Alternative  Voting 181 

Disqualification  of  Conscientious  Objectors 182 

Redistribution  in  Ireland 185 

The  Bill  in  the  House  of  Lords 187 

Women's  Suffrage  in  the  House  of  Lords 188 

Proportional  Representation  and  Alternative  Voting  in  the '"House 

of  Lords 188 

Divisions  of  Constituencies  into  Polling  Districts 190 

Special  Provision  for  Registration  of  Freemen 191 

Struggle  between  the  Lords  and  Commons  over  Proportional  Rep- 
resentation and  Alternative  Voting 192 

Redistribution 198 

Proportional  Representation  finally  defeated 199 

Conclusion 109 

APPENDIX 

THE  PARLIAMENTARY  ELECTION,  DECEMBER,  1918   .   .   .  201 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 

THE  history  of  the  franchise  reform  bills  in  England 
during  the  nineteenth  century  represents  in  a  fairly  ac- 
curate way  the  struggle  for  democracy  in  that  country. 
The  basis  of  the  state  was  gradually  broadened  by  these 
franchise  reforms  to  include  within  its  political  scope  a 
larger  part  of  the  population.  The  disfranchised  sections 
of  the  population  in  their  struggle  for  political  rights 
worked,  as  always,  under  a  great  handicap.  Since  they 
were  without  political  power  they  had  either  to  create  a 
general  sentiment  for  their  cause  which  would  compel 
the  Government  to  grant  concessions  or  to  induce  a 
political  party  to  sponsor  their  cause.  The  party  leaders 
recognized  that  any  radical  extension  of  the  franchise 
was  fraught  with  unknown  political  eventualities.  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  the  three  great  electoral  reforms 
in  England  during  the  nineteenth  century  were  periods 
of  such  great  national  excitement  and  intense  party  an- 
tagonism. The  political  powers  were  so  strongly  en- 
trenched, and  their  fear  of  the  people  was  so  great  that 
only  certain  classes  were  admitted  to  political  rights  at 
each  stage  of  the  franchise  reform. 

The  first  fact  to  appreciate  in  connection  with  the  Eng- 
lish franchise  system  is  that  when  the  new  extensions  of 
the  franchise  were  granted,  the  old  system  was  not  re- 
codified  and  all  the  old  qualifications  abolished,  but  new 
qualifications  were  simply  added.  As  a  result  of  this 
215]  9 


10  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [2i6 

process  the  old  rights  and  qualifications  extending  back 
to  feudal  days  continued  to  form  a  part  of  the  franchise 
system.1  This  naturally  resulted  in  anomalies  and  gross 
inconsistencies.  The  growth  of  democratic  ideas  made 
this  antiquated  system  seem  intolerable.  A  brief  state- 
ment of  the  chief  causes  of  grievance  will  serve  to  intro- 
duce the  problem  in  its  complicated  aspects. 

In  England  the  right  of  franchise  was  never  granted 
to  a  man  as  an  individual,  nor  indeed  was  it  so  granted 
by  the  Act  of  1918.  It  was,  on  the  contrary,  granted  to 
the  individual  because  of  his  ownership,  occupation,  resi- 
dence, service,  right  as  a  lodger,  or  by  virtue  of  being  a 
graduate  of  some  particular  university.  This  system  re- 
sulted in  the  practice  of  plural  voting — that  is,  an  elector 
could  vote  in  every  constituency  in  which  he  possessed 
the  necessary  qualifications.  The  exact  number  of  these 
plural  votes  cannot  be  determined,  but  in  1910  there 
were,  it  was  estimated,  between  500,000  and  525,000. 
The  character  of  the  political  controversy  and  the  part- 
isan spirit  back  of  the  demand  for  the  abolition  of  plural 
voting  was  intensified  by  the  fact  that  at  least  eighty  per 
cent  of  the  plural  voters  were  affiliated  with  the  Conser- 
vative party.2  The  abolition  of  this  system  became  one 
of  the  cardinal  demands  of  the  Liberal  party  and  gave 
zest  to  the  agitations  for  other  franchise  reforms. 

Another  cause  of  grievance  was  the  system  of  registra- 
tion. The  franchise  laws  in  England  were  not  as  liberal 
as  they  might  at  first  appear,  for  an  elector  was  only  a 
potential  voter  until  his  name  was  placed  on  the  current 
register.  In  order  to  be  placed  upon  the  register  all 

1  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  Constitution  (4th  edition  1909,  revised 
1911),  vol.  i,  pp.  101-123. 

2  Porritt,  "  Barriers  against  Democracy,"  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
vol.  xxvi,  p.  8. 


2i7]  INTRODUCTION  H 

voters,  except  owners  and  freemen,  must  have  been  in 
occupation  of  the  qualifying  premises  for  one  year  pre- 
ceding the  fifteenth  of  July,  and  the  register  became 
effective  the  first  of  the  following  January.1  Thus  the 
law  required  twelve  months  continuous  occupation  in  a 
constituency,  and  a  minimum  of  eighteen  months  must 
elapse  before  an  elector  could  actually  vote.  If  an  elector 
moved  into  a  constituency  shortly  after  the  fifteenth  of 
July  it  was  almost  thirty  months  before  he  became  an 
actual  voter  in  that  constituency.  This  requirement  re- 
sulted in  the  disfranchisement  of  a  vast  number  of  elec- 
tors, especially  among  casual  laborers  and  the  great  in- 
dustrial population  that  moved  frequently.  This  also  had 
its  partisan  aspect  because  it  affected  the  Liberal  and 
Labor  parties  more  adversely  than  the  Conservative  party 
and  led  to  a  demand  to  shorten  the  qualifying  period, 
which  in  turn  involved  the  whole  question  of  the  regis- 
tration system. 

The  difference  in  the  size  of  the  electoral  districts  also 
resulted  in  great  political  inequalities.  The  redistribu- 
tion of  seats  under  the  Act  of  1885  was  at  best  only  a 
rough  approximation  to  equal  electoral  districts.  The 
industrial  changes  of  the  following  years  resulted  in 
great  shifts  in  population.  Since  there  was  no  provision 
for  periodic  redistribution,  gross  inequalities  developed 
which  became  a  mockery  to  the  principle  of  equal  repre- 
sentation. In  1911  the  constituency  of  Newry  in  Ire- 
land, with  a  population  of  12,841,  and  that  of  Romford 
in  Essex,  with  a  population  of  312,804,  each  had  a 
single  representative  in  Parliament.  The  disproportion 
was  twenty-four  to  one.  The  disparity  with  Durham, 
the  smallest  constituency  in  England,  with  a  population 

1  Rogers,  On  Elections,  vol.  i,  pp.  61-63,  125. 


12  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [218 

of  15,986,  was  almost  as  great.  These  inequalities  led 
to  an  insistent  demand  for  a  redistribution  of  seats. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1884  the  demand  for 
women's  suffrage  was  of  little  more  than  academic  in- 
terest, but  the  feminist  movement  developed  rapidly. 
This  struggle  of  women  against  prejudices,  custom,  and 
tradition,  against  entrenched  political  power  and  vested 
interests,  and  against  the  divisions  within  their  own 
ranks,  makes  one  of  the  most  thrilling  chapters  in  the 
fight  for  political  rights.  The  task  was  the  more  diffi- 
cult in  England  because  it  was  a  question  that  ran 
athwart  party  lines ;  neither  of  the  two  dominant  parties 
was  able  to  make  a  party  issue  of  it.  Even  after  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Liberals,  as  individuals,  had  expressed  them- 
selves in  favor  of  the  principle,  they  were  never  as  a 
party  willing  to  risk  their  political  life  upon  the  issue, 
because  they  were  convinced  that  the  popular  demand 
for  it  was  not  deep-seated  enough  to  require  action.  It 
was,  therefore,  only  in  the  cataclysm  of  war  that  the 
women  of  England  were  able  to  convince  the  Govern- 
ment of  their  real  strength  and  of  their  value  to  the  state. 
It  was  under  such  conditions  that  the  franchise  was 
finally  extended  to  them,  England  being  the  first  of  the 
Great  Powers  of  Europe  to  enfranchise  women. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  trace  since  1885 
the  history  of  the  movement  to  eliminate  these  political 
inequalities,  to  abolish  anomalies  and  to  extend  the  scope 
of  the  franchise.  Of  these  reforms  only  two  aroused  any 
very  great  interest,  plural  voting  and  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  women.  They  will  accordingly  occupy  chief 
consideration,  and  special  attention  will  be  given  to  the 
parliamentary  development  of  these  reforms.  The  ques- 
tion of  plural  voting  never  attracted  any  very  great  at- 
tention outside  political  circles  and  never  became  a  sub- 


219]  INTRODUCTION  !3 

ject  of  popular  interest,  but  it  did  cause  a  great  deal  of 
agitation  in  Parliament. 

The  question  of  women's  suffrage,  however,  was  one 
upon  which  the  attention  of  the  nation  was  finally 
focused.  No  attempt  will  be  made  to  follow  the  entire 
development  of  the  women's  suffrage  movement;  it  will 
be  discussed  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  give  the 
proper  background  for  its  parliamentary  history.  Al- 
though a  multitude  of  bills  were  introduced  into  Parlia- 
ment dealing  with  these  matters,  they  were  all  defeated 
except  the  Representation  of  the  People  Bill  of  1917,  yet 
each  one  played  a  part  in  the  crystalization  of  public 
sentiment.  It  was  this  persistent  agitation  and  unceas- 
ing effort  of  the  reform  advocates  that  made  possible  the 
Act  of  1918.  The  reforms  will  be  traced  separately  ex- 
cept when  the  movements  were  merged  in  1912  and 
again  in  1917. 


CHAPTER  II 

ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  BETWEEN 
1885  AND  1909 

THERE  was  very  little  discussion,  either  by  the  public 
or  in  Parliament,  concerning  the  question  of  franchise  or 
electoral  reforms  for  several  years  after  the  passage  of 
the  Redistribution  Act  of  1885.  This  silence  was  broken 
in  1891  when  a  resolution  was  introduced1  which  pro- 
vided that  the  laws  relating  to  qualification  and  reg- 
istration of  parliamentary  electors  should  be  simplified.2 
But  the  Government  showed  no  disposition  to  give  any 
time  for  the  discussion  of  the  question  so  that  with  its 
first  introduction  the  resolution  was  defeated.  In  the 
years  immediately  following,  bills  were  introduced  to 
abolish  plural  voting,  to  establish  manhood  suffrage,  to 
reduce  the  qualifying  period,  and  to  hold  all  elections  on 
the  same  day.  These  bills  were  invariably  defeated  and 
aroused  little  interest  either  in  or  out  of  Parliament.3 

During  the  ascendency  of  the  Unionist  party  in  the 
decade  following  their  success  at  the  polls  in  1895  the 
question  of  franchise  reform  received  little  consideration. 
The  Liberals  were  too  weak  and  torn  with  dissensions 
to  be  able  to  make  any  formidable  demands.  Every  time 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  series,  vol.  351 :  40-50. 
*  It  provided  that  a  person  could  not  vote  in  more  than  one  electoral 
division,  and  the  time  of  qualification  was  reduced  to  three  months. 
3  Bills  were  introduced  in  1892,  1893,  1894  and  1895. 

14  [220 


221  ]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  15 

the  party  introduced  any  bill  looking  toward  a  reform  of 
the  franchise  it  was  met  with  the  statement  from  the 
Unionists  that  such  a  reform  could  be  considered  only 
in  connection  with  the  question  of  redistribution.  "  One 
man,  one  value  "  must  be  dealt  with  at  the  same  time  as 
"one  man,  one  vote".  But  in  spite  of  their  great  major- 
ity the  Unionists  showed  little  enthusiasm  for  the  con- 
summation of  either  reform.  It  fact  it  was  not  until  the 
last  session  of  the  Unionist  Parliament  that  the  subject 
was  even  broached  by  the  Government  itself. 

The  activity  of  the  Government,  however,  went  no 
farther  than  the  appointment  of  a  Boundary  Commission 
to  study  the  question,  and  a  promise  by  the  Prime  Min- 
ister that  a  bill  dealing  with  the  whole  question  of  redis- 
tribution and  electoral  reform  would  be  introduced  the 
following  year.  The  sudden  resignation  of  Mr.  Balfour 
in  December,  1905,  relieved  him  of  the  responsibility  of 
fulfilling  this  obligation.  Thus  for  two  decades  follow- 
ing the  acts  of  the  8o's  very  little  interest  was  manifested 
in  the  question  of  franchise  and  electoral  reforms. 

General  Election  of  1906 

The  election  of  1906  marked  an  epoch  in  English 
political  life.  The  Unionists  had  been  losing  in  the 
recent  by-elections,  and  the  returns  of  the  general  elec- 
tion demonstrated  that  they  had  lost  the  confidence  of 
the  country.  When  Mr.  Chamberlain  in  1903  raised  the 
question  of  the  protective  tariff,  it  served  as  nothing 
else  had  to  divide  the  strength  of  the  Unionists  and  to 
unite  the  divided  ranks  of  the  Liberals.  The  Liberal 
leaders  were  not  slow  to  seize  this  opportunity  to  unite 
their  own  party  and  to  appeal  to  the  country  squarely  upon 
the  question  of  free  trade  versus  protection.  This  was 
the  one  issue  which  the  Liberals  constantly  discussed 


!6  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [222 

and  they  did  not  permit  minor  questions  to  confuse  the 
voters.  The  results  of  the  election  fully  justified  their 
political  sagacity. 

A  total  of  6,555,301  votes  were  cast ;  of  these  4,026,- 
704  were  cast  for  Liberal,  Nationalist,  and  Labor  candi- 
dates; only  2,528,597  for  Conservatives  and  Liberal 
Unionists.  As  a  result  the  Liberals  and  their  allies  had 
a  clear  majority  of  354  members  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, the  party  strength  being  374  Liberals,  84  National- 
ists, 54  Laborites,  as  against  131  Conservatives  and  27 
Liberal  Unionists.  Such  an  overwhelming  victory  placed 
the  Government  in  a  position  to  carry  out  its  program, 
at  least  so  far  as  the  House  of  Commons  was  concerned. 
The  dominant  issue  in  the  election  did  not  require  im- 
mediate legislative  action  by  the  Government  since  it 
had  been  really  one  of  opposition  to  change.  The  Gov- 
ernment was,  therefore,  free  to  carry  out  the  other  parts 
of  the  Liberal  program  which  had  been  very  largely  in 
the  background  during  the  campaign.  The  Liberal 
victory  meant  the  revival  of  the  attempt  to  secure  fran- 
chise reform,  which  was  first  directed  towards  the  aboli- 
tion of  plural  voting.  For  years  this  had  been  one  of 
the  cardinal  demands  of  the  party.  The  principle  was 
annually  reaffirmed  at  the  meetings  of  the  National  Lib- 
eral Federation  that  no  elector  should  have  more  than 
one  vote.  The  campaign  speeches  indicated,  however, 
that  the  question  played  no  important  part  in  the  elec- 
tion, although  it  was  mentioned  in  most  of  the  election 
addresses  and  it  was  clearly  stated  as  one  of  the  demands 
of  the  party. 

In  his  first  formal  address  delivered  at  Albert  Hall 
after  he  was  appointed  Prime  Minister,  Sir  H.  Campbell- 
Bannerman,  having  spoken  of  the  program  for  reform 
said :  "  Do  not  let  us  forget  that  for  these  purposes  our 


223]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING 


instrument — that  is,  the  British  Parliament- 
made  effective  and  ready.  We  must  as  opportunities 
afford  restore  its  impaired  authority,  develop  its  strength 
and  by  reforming  its  electoral  methods,  bring  it  into 
closer  touch  with  the  life  of  the  people."1 

Plural  Voting  Bill  of  1906 

In  the  speech  from  the  Throne  at  the  opening  of  the 
session  the  attention  of  Parliament  was  directed  to  the 
advisability  of  preventing  plural  voting  in  parliamentary 
elections.2  On  May  2,  1906,  a  bill  embodying  this  rec- 
ommendation was  introduced  for  the  Government  by 
Mr.  Harcourt,  the  First  Commissioner  of  Works.  It 
was  a  brief  bill  providing  that  a  person  registered  as  a 
parliamentary  elector  in  more  than  one  constituency 
could  vote  only  in  the  one  which  he  definitely  selected 
as  his  voting  place.3  In  selecting  a  voting  constituency 
the  elector  would  be  required  to  send  a  notice  of  his 
selection  to  the  clerk  of  the  county  council  or  town 
clerk  who  would  be  responsible  for  printing  the  parlia- 
mentary register.  The  name  was  to  appear  on  the  reg- 
ister in  subsequent  years  so  long  as  there  was  no  inter- 
ruption in  qualifications  and  so  long  as  the  selection  was 
not  withdrawn.  The  law  at  that  time  prohibited  an 
elector  with  qualifications  in  more  than  one  division  of  a 
borough  from  voting  in  more  than  one  division  at  a 
single  election.4  By  the  bill  the  Government  proposed 
to  extend  this  principle  to  the  country  as  a  whole,  and 
to  abolish  plural  voting  between  boroughs  and  counties 
as  it  already  had  been  abolished  between  the  divisions  of 
a  single  borough. 

1  The  Times,  December  22,  1905,  p.  7. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  152:  24. 

1  Public  Bills,  1906,  vol.  iv,  Bill  187. 

*  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act,  1885  (48  &  49  Viet.,  c.  23),  s.  8. 


1 8  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [224 

The  greatest  amount  of  discussion  during  the  debates 
on  the  bill  was  concerned  with  the  motives  that  inspired 
it.  The  Opposition  maintained  that  it  was  introduced 
for  political  reasons  to  deprive  the  Conservatives  of  their 
votes.  Thus  The  Times  in  an  editorial  comment  on  the 
introduction  of  the  bill  said,  "  Its  introduction  can  only 
be  regarded  as  another  of  the  sops  thrown,  regardless  of 
principle  or  coherence,  by  the  present  Government  to 
the  different  sections  of  the  heterogeneous  coalition  upon 
which  it  depends."1  The  Spectator1  opposed  the  bill 
very  strongly  because  it  dealt  with  the  subject  of 
"one  man,  one  vote,"  while  it  left  untouched  the  far 
greater  evil  of  the  unequal  value  of  the  vote.  The  two 
reforms,  it  maintained,  should  be  dealt  with  at  the  same 
time.3  The  Tribune,  a  Liberal  paper,  did  not  attempt  to 
conceal  the  party  advantage  which  it  believed  would  re- 
sult from  the  passage  of  the  bill.4 

The  bill  came  up  for  second  reading  on  May  14.  The 
Liberals  opposed  the  system  of  plural  voting  as  an  an- 
achronism, a  survival  of  former  privileges  which  ought  to 
be  abolished  in  favor  of  a  more  democratic  system  of 
voting.  As  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Harcourt,  the  system  of 
plural  voting  gave  the  land  holders  an  undue  power  in 
the  determination  of  the  policy  of  the  Government,  be- 
cause their  land  qualified  them  to  vote  in  different  con- 
stituencies, while  men  who  held  personal  and  intangible 
property  had  but  one  vote.5  It  was  to  this  overrepre- 

1  The  Times,  May  3,  1906,  p.  9. 

2  While  a  Unionist  paper,  it  supported  the  Liberals  during  the  recent 
election  on  account  of  their  opposition  to  the  principle  of  the  protective 
tariff. 

*  The  Spectator,  May  5,  1906,  p.  697. 

*  The  Tribune,  May  3,  1906,  p.  6. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  157:  234-41. 


225]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  ig 

sentation  of  the  landed  classes  that  the  Liberals  had  at- 
tributed a  large  number  of  their  political  defeats. 

This  discussion  involved  the  question  of  the  real  basis 
of  English  representation.  In  setting  forth  the  Liberal 
theory  of  representation  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman 
voiced  the  conviction  of  his  party  when  he  said,  "  I  re- 
pudiate the  idea  that  a  man  votes  because  of  his  prop- 
erty. I  repudiate  altogether  that  theory.  If  it  is  a 
theory  which  has  tradition  and  historic  weight  behind  it, 
then  the  sooner  we  pass  this  bill  and  get  free  from  the 
idea  the  better,  because  in  the  future,  whatever  it  may 
have  been  in  the  past,  the  voting  power  of  this  country 
must  be  in  the  voter  himself  because  he  is  a  qualified 
voter,  and  not  on  account  of  his  property."  x  The  plural 
voters  did  not  lack  staunch  supporters  to  defend  their 
cause  from  the  standpoint  of  the  principle  of  govern- 
ment. Mr.  Forster  stated  the  Conservative  viewpoint 
when  he  said  that  property  was  at  the  basis  of  every 
vote  in  the  country,  and  therefore  the  system  of  plural 
voting  was  in  harmony  with  the  English  principle  of 
franchise.2  He  contended  that  a  man  did  not  vote  be- 
cause he  was  a  man,  since  such  a  policy  would  constitute 
manhood  suffrage ;  he  exercised  the  right  because  he 
was  the  owner  of  a  freehold  property  of  a  minimum 
value,  or  was  a  lease  holder  or  occupier.  Plural  voting, 
he  argued,  was  in  accord  with  the  English  principle  of 
representation  of  property  through  the  localities. 

The  Opposition  attacked  the  bill  also  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  piecemeal  legislation — that  instead  of  deal- 
ing with  the  whole  problem  it  dealt  simply  with  one  of 
the  electoral  anomalies,  the  abolition  of  which  was  of 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  157:298. 
*Ibid.,  208-14. 


20  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [226 

yvlj!  j  "^  •'••'    *• 

party  advantage  to  the  Liberals.  As  an  evidence  of  this 
they  cited  the  great  disparity  detween  the  large  and  the 
small  constituencies.  The  examples  of  Kilkenny  and 
Newry  with  their  small  number  of  electors  and  Romford 
and  Walthamston  with  their  large  electorates,  were  fre- 
quently mentioned  during  the  debate.  While  the  bill 
did  not  include  redistribution,  Sir  Charles  Dilke  argued 
that  its  effect  would  be  to  reduce  the  disparities  and  to 
take  a  step  toward  "  one  vote,  one  value."  This  would 
be  especially  true,  he  maintained,  between  England, 
Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  because  there  were  fewer 
plural  voters  in  Wales  and  Scotland  than  in  England  and 
virtually  none  in  Ireland.1  The  Conservatives  attempted 
to  place  the  Government  in  the  position  of  opposing  re- 
distribution. In  answer  to  this  charge  Mr.  Dobson 
pointed  out  that  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  party 
in  addressing  their  constituencies  had  pledged  themselves 
in  favor  of  a  redistribution  bill.2  He  contended,  how- 
ever, that  such  a  reform  should  be  the  work  of  an  old, 
not  of  a  new  Parliament.  In  spite  of  the  protests  of 
the  Opposition  the  bill  passed  a  second  reading  by  the 
vote  of  403  to  95. 

The  question  of  university  representation  caused  more 
discussion  during  the  committee  stage  than  any  other 
single  amendment.  Mr.  Cave  moved  to  amend  the  bill 
so  that  it  would  not  apply  to  university  constituencies.3 
He  was  ably  supported  in  this  by  Mr.  Balfour,  who  ap- 
peared as  the  chief  champion  of  university  representation. 
They  both  insisted  that  the  question  of  the  perpetuation 
of  the  system  of  university  representation  was  brought 
directly  before  the  House  by  the  bill.  University  electors 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  157:215-21. 

*  Ibid.,  259. 

9  Ibid.,  vol.  163:  201-4. 


227]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  2l 


were  granted  the  right  of  selection  in  the  bill  the  same 
as  any  other  elector,  but  the  Opponents  of  the  bill  main- 
tained that  this  was  only  an  insidious  method  adopted 
by  the  Government  which  would  ultimately  lead  to  a  de- 
mand for  a  complete  abolition  of  the  system  since  a  uni- 
versity elector  would  probably  select  his  place  of  resi- 
dence as  his  voting  constituency. 

The  policy  of  the  Government  was  defended  by  Mr. 
Harcourt.1  He  denied  any  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  of  abolishing  the  system  of  university  repre- 
sentation, the  whole  contention  of  the  Government  being 
that  they  were  treating  the  university  voter  the  same  as 
other  plural  voters.  Both  in  the  House  and  in  the  press 
the  division  over  the  question  was  purely  on  party  lines. 
The  vote  to  exclude  the  university  constituency  from  ap- 
plication in  the  bill  failed  by  a  vote  of  92  to  326.  Other 
attempts  to  save  the  university  vote  met  the  same  fate. 

According  to  the  bill  the  plural  voter,  in  order  to  get 
on  the  register  the  first  time,  had  to  make  a  definite 
selection  ;  otherwise  he  could  not  vote  at  all.  This  prin- 
ciple was  the  cause  of  a  great  deal  of  discussion  and 
numerous  amendments  were  offered,  some  of  them  by 
the  Opposition  in  their  attempt  to  defeat  the  purposes 
of  the  bill  and  others  by  Liberals  who  believed  that  the 
bill,  as  framed,  was  unworkable.  The  plan  urged  most 
strongly  was  that  the  place  of  residence  should  be  the 
voting  constituency.  This  would  obviate  the  necessity 
of  making  a  selection  except  where  an  elector  had  more 
than  one  residence.3  The  Government,  however,  insisted 
that  the  principle  of  selection  was  an  integral  part  of  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  163  :  204-6. 

'Amendments  offered  by  Sir  Charles  Dilke,  a  friend  of  the  Bill, 
Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  163:  475,  and  by  Mr.  Austen 
Chamberlain,  an  opponent  of  the  Bill,  ibid.,  489. 


22  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [228 

bill  and  could  not  be  changed.  It  was  not,  it  said,  too 
great  a  hardship  to  ask  the  plural  voter  to  make  a  selec- 
tion once  in  his  lifetime.  This,  it  pointed  out,  was  no 
greater  hardship  than  the  requirement  of  the  lodgers 
who  had  to  register  every  year  in  order  to  have  the  right 
to  vote. 

During  the  whole  course  of  the  bill  in  the  House  of 
Commons  the  Government  did  not  accept  an  amendment 
which  altered  in  any  way  the  principle  of  the  measure, 
although  several  amendments  were  adopted  which 
changed  slightly  the  machinery  of  the  bill.  With  these 
changes  the  bill  passed  a  third  reading  on  December  3, 
1906,  by  the  vote  of  333  to  104. 

The  bill  was  read  a  first  time  the  next  day  in  the 
House  of  Lords  and  came  up  for  the  second  reading  on 
December  10.  No  new  arguments  were  presented  by 
the  Lords  that  had  not  been  considered  by  the  Com- 
mons. The  discussion  attracted  little  attention  and  the 
time  devoted  to  the  bill  occupied  less  than  one  sitting. 
It  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  Lords  would  defeat 
the  measure.  On  the  motion  for  a  second  reading  the 
bill  was  defeated  by  the  vote  of  43  to  143. * 

The  debates  indicate  a  rather  clear-cut  issue  between 
the  parties.  The  Liberals  demanded  the  abolition  of 
plural  voting  as  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  de- 
mocracy. They  insisted  that  the  individual  elector 
rather  than  property  was  the  basis  of  representation.  At 
the  same  time  they  recognized  the  party  advantage  that 
would  come  to  them  from  the  abolition  of  plural  voting. 
The  fact  that  in  many  constituencies  during  the  past  two 
decades  these  very  members  of  Parliament  had  been  de- 
feated, largely,  as  they  believed,  by  the  ballots  of  non- 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,    vol.  166:  1518. 


229]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  23 

resident  voters,  naturally  lent  zest  to  the  demand  for 
reform.  The  Conservatives,  being  largely  representa- 
tives of  the  landed  and  propertied  classes,  looked  upon 
the  franchise  as  the  guardian  of  the  interests  of  property 
and  viewed  with  alarm  the  democratic  demand  of  "one 
man,  one  vote."  They  met  this  with  the  slogan,  "  one 
vote,  one  value."  During  their  term  of  office,  however, 
they  had  shown  no  enthusiasm  for  such  a  reform  except 
in  so  far  as  it  applied  to  a  reduction  of  the  Irish  repre- 
sentation. They  never  advocated  redistribution  in  con- 
nection with  the  great  industrial  centers  in  England. 
They  had  their  eyes  fixed  upon  the  immediate  political 
effects  just  as  the  Liberals  had.  Having  so  recently  suf- 
fered an  overwhelming  defeat  they  were  going  to  resist 
with  all  possible  means  any  inroads  upon  their  ancient 
privileges. 

Two  days  after  the  Lords  defeated  the  Plural  Voting 
Bill  the  House  of  Commons  rejected  en  bloc  the  proposed 
amendments  to  the  Educational  Bill  which  had  been 
made  by  the  Lords.  These  events  brought  into  the  very 
center  of  political  discussion  the  whole  question  of  the 
constitutional  status  and  the  power  of  the  House  of 
Lords.  The  Liberals  maintained  that  since  the  Govern- 
ment had  to  administer  the  laws,  it  must  also  have  con- 
trol of  making  the  laws.  They  insisted  that  the  Govern- 
ment could  not  be  constantly  hampered  by  an  irresponsi- 
ble body  of  men  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  admin- 
istrative work  of  the  government.  The  Liberals  were 
not  slow  to  make  this  one  of  their  chief  party  issues. 
At  the  meeting  of  The  National  Liberal  Federation  held 
at  Plymouth  in  1907  a  resolution  was  carried  unanimously 
which  condemned  the  House  of  Lords  for  the  flagrant 
misuse  of  its  power.1  At  this  same  meeting  Sir  Henry 

^Proceedings  of  National  Liberal  Federation,  1907,  p.  56. 


24  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [230 

Campbell-Bannerman  pledged  his  party  to  carry  this 
matter  to  a  serious  and  decisive  test  and  served  notice  to 
that  effect  on  the  Lords.1  One  pamphleteer  pointed  out 
that  for  thirty-eight  years  the  Lords  had  not  defeated  a 
bill  which  had  been  passed  and  supported  by  the  Con- 
servative party.  But  during  that  time  they  had  rejected* 
defeated,  or  mutilated  twenty-six  bills  supported  by  the 
Liberals,  eight  of  these  during  the  years  1906  and  1907. 2 
With  the  menacing  attitude  of  the  Lords  the  Liberals 
realized  more  fully  the  necessity  of  abolishing  the  system 
of  plural  voting  in  order  that  the  House  of  Commons 
might  more  accurately  reflect  the  political  views  of  the 
electorate  which  they  believed  would  strengthen  their 
position.  They  recognized,  however,  that  it  would  be 
practically  impossible  to  pass  a  general  reform  bill  until 
some  changes  were  made  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

Election  and  Registration  Bill  (London)  1908 
The  next  attempt  to  abolish  plural  voting  was  made 
in  1908.  This  was  not  a  general  bill  as  was  the  one  of 
1906,  but  applied  only  to  London  and  dealt  with  election 
and  registration.  Its  chief  purpose  was  the  abolition  of 
plural  voting.  The  bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Dickin- 
son and  although  a  private  members'  bill  it  was  permit- 
ted to  come  up  for  a  second  reading.3  As  pointed  out 
by  Mr.  Dickinson,  London  was  in  a  different  position 
from  any  other  city  in  regard  to  parliamentary  elections. 
The  city  was  divided  into  twenty-eight  parliamentary 
boroughs  instead  of  being  a  single  parliamentary  bor- 
ough as  was  the  case  in  other  cities.  Each  of  these 
twenty-eight  boroughs  was  sub-divided  into  electoral 

1  Proceedings  of  National  Liberal  Federation,  1907,   p.  87. 

9  Liberal  Publications,  1907. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  183:  1233-41. 


231]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  25 

divisions  as  was  true  in  other  cities.  This  system  in 
London  gave  rise  to  two  anomalies.  In  the  first  place,  it 
caused  a  large  number  of  electors  to  lose  their  votes  be- 
cause of  the  twelve  months'  residence  qualification  in 
each  borough.  Mr.  Dickinson  estimated  that  in  his  own 
constituency  in  1907  there  were  300  electors  who  moved 
to  other  parliamentary  boroughs  in  London.  If  this 
were  typical  of  other  boroughs  it  would  mean  that  there 
were  from  25,000  to  30,000  electors  who  lost  their  votes 
because  they  moved  from  one  part  of  the  city  to  another. 
The  second  anomaly  resulted  in  a  multiplication  of  the 
number  of  plural  voters.  If  a  man  had  business  interests 
and  possessed  qualifications  in  each  borough  he  would 
have  as  many  votes.  It  was  estimated  that  of  the  600,- 
ooo  electors  in  London  some  60,000  had  duplicate  votes 
elsewhere,  and  at  least  36,000  of  these  had  duplicate 
qualifications  in  the  City  of  London.  It  was  to  remedy 
these  anomalies  that  the  bill  was  introduced.  It  pro- 
vided that  the  county  of  London  should  comprise  one 
parliamentary  borough  and  that  the  parliamentary  bor- 
oughs which  existed  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
act  should  become  divisions  of  the  parliamentary  bor- 
ough.1 

The  bill  was  opposed  on  the  familiar  lines  that  it  was 
piecemeal  legislation  and  would  touch  only  one  evil. 
The  arguments  for  and  against  plural  voting  played  an 
important  part  in  the  discussion.  At  the  close  of  the 
day's  sitting  Mr.  Dickinson  moved  that  the  bill  be  read 
a  second  time,  but  the  Speaker  refused  to  put  the  ques- 
tion and  it  never  came  to  a  vote.  The  supporters  of  the 
bill  claimed  that  it  would  have  removed  the  glaring 
anomalies  in  relation  to  London,  and  would  have  placed 

1  Public  Bills,  1908,  vol.  ii,  p.  341. 


26  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [232 

it  on  an  equal  basis  with  other  cities.  If  the  bill  had 
come  to  a  vote  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  would  have 
passed,  for  the  Government  refused  to  sponsor  the  meas- 
ure. It  is  practically  certain  that  it  would  not  have 
passed  the  House  of  Lords. 

London  Election  Bill  of  1909 

The  following  year  Mr.  Harcourt  introduced  for  the 
Government  a  London  Election  Bill  which  was  some- 
what less  pretentious  than  that  of  1908.  This  bill  did 
not  provide  any  new  machinery  for  its  operation ;  it 
simply  applied  the  existing  law  to  London.  An  elector 
having  more  than  one  qualification  should  notify  the  re- 
vising barrister  of  the  selection  of  his  voting  place.  In 
case  one  of  his  qualifications  was  his  place  of  abode  that 
would  constitute  his  election  division.  Nonresident 
freemen,  who  had  no  place  of  abode  within  the  parlia- 
mentary borough,  would  be  assigned  an  election  division 
by  the  revising  barrister,  the  assignments  to  be  distribu- 
ted equally  among  the  divisions.1  In  this  respect  the 
bill  made  one  concession  to  the  borough  of  the  City  of 
London  which  was  the  center  of  the  banking,  trading, 
and  commercial  interests.  It  provided  that  non  resident 
.freemen  and  liverymen  of  the  City  of  London  would  be 
entitled  to  register  in  that  division  and  could  not  be  as- 
signed to  any  other  division  as  would  be  the  case  in  the 
other  boroughs  of  the  city.2 

While  the  bill  applied  only  to  London  the  whole  argu- 
ment centered  upon  the  general  question  of  plural  vot- 
ing. The  Government  insisted  that  because  of  the  divis- 
ion of  London  into  parliamentary  boroughs  it  was  placed 

1  Redistribution   of  Seats  Act,   1885    (48  &  49  Viet.,   c.  23),   s.    14. 
(Parliamentary  Papers — London  Election  Bill,  1909,  vol.  70,  Bill  133). 
*  Parliamentary  Papers,  1909,  vol.  iii.  Bill  155. 


233]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING  27 

in  a  different  position  from  any  other  city  and  that  the 
proposed  bill  would  remedy  this  injustice.  It  was  re- 
peatedly asserted  during  the  debate  that  the  Government 
was  attempting  to  secure  by  piecemeal  legislation  what 
it  had  failed  to  obtain  by  the  general  bill  of  1906.  On  a 
final  vote  before  the  question  was  put  for  a  third  reading 
the  bill  carried  by  161  to  29.  Of  the  29  London  mem- 
bers who  voted,  24  voted  for  the  bill. 

The  next  day  the  bill  was  read  for  the  first  time  in  the 
House  of  Lords  and  came  up  for  a  second  reading  on 
November  8.  The  arguments  took  about  the  same 
course  as  in  the  Commons.  It  was  generally  conceded 
that  the  bill  was  supported  and  opposed  for  party  rea- 
sons.1 It  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  it  would  be 
defeated  by  the  Lords.  They  lived  up  to  expectation 
and  it  was  given  the  "  three  months  hoist ". 

Thus  the  Liberals  had  been  unable  to  realize  the  high 
hopes  that  they  entertained  after  their  victory  in  1906. 
The  House  of  Lords  had  blocked  the  efforts  of  the  party 
to  abolish  plural  voting.  This  served  only  to  convince 
the  Liberal  leaders  that  the  House  of  Lords  was  the 
stronghold  of  privilege.  They  decided  that  Liberal  leg- 
islation could  be  passed  only  by  reconstituting  the  House 
of  Lords  or  placing  limitations  on  its  power.  The  next 
two  years  were  so  taken  up  with  these  constitutional 
questions  that  there  was  no  discussion  upon  any  bill 
dealing  with  plural  voting.  It  was  not  until  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Franchise  and  Registration  Bill  of  1912 
that  the  Government  again  turned  its  attention  toward 
this  question. 

1  Liberal  Magazine,  1909,  vol.  xvii,  pp.  698-9.    Tl%e  Times,  October  19, 
1909,  p.  9. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE 

THE  great  struggle  for  women's  suffrage  in  England  was 
to  gain  the  parliamentary  franchise;  the  right  of  municipal 
or  borough  franchise  was  granted  in  1869  without  any 
bitter  opposition.1  The  Reform  Act  of  1832  definitely  pre- 
vented women  from  exercising  the  right  of  the  parliamen- 
tary franchise  by  the  introduction  of  the  word  "male" 
before  the  word  "person."  The  first  serious  parliamen- 
tary debate  on  national  women's  suffrage  occurred  when 
John  Stuart  Mill  offered  his  amendment  to  the  Bill  of 
1867  to  omit  tne  word  "man"  and  substitute  the  word 
"  person  "  in  the  enfranchising  clause.2  Although  he  sup- 
ported this  amendment  by  a  speech  which  deeply  impressed 
the  House,  it  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  73  to  196.  The 
women,  nevertheless  attempted  to  exercise  the  right  to  vote 
under  the  act  as  passed.  They  claimed  that  the  Reform  Bill 
as  interpreted  by  Lord  Brougham's  Act  of  1850  conferred 

1  The  Municipal  Corporation  Act  of  1835  introduced  the  word  "  male  " 
before  the  word  "  person,"  thereby  depriving  women  of  the  right  to  vote, 
which  at  that  time  they  were  entitled  to  exercise,  if  otherwise  qualified. 
Through  the  effort  of  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  the  Municipal  Corporation  Act 
of  1869  restored  the  municipal  franchise  to  women.    This  act  was  re- 
pealed and  reenacted  by  the  Municipal  Corporation  Act  of  1882.    This 
together  with  subsequent  acts  granted  women  the  right  of  both  borough 
and  county  franchise  on  the  same  basis  as  men.     Marriage,  however, 
continued  to  constitute  a  total  disqualification.     (Rogers,  On  Elections, 
voL  i,  pp.  187,  179,  67-8). 

2  Hansard  (Parliamentary  Debates)  3d  series,  vol.  284:996;  Murdoch, 
Constitutional  Reform,  p.  250;  .Seymour,  Electoral  Reform  in  England 
and  Wales,  p.  476. 

28  [234 


235]    EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE        2g 

the  franchise  upon  women.  This  Act  declared,  "That  in 
all  Acts  words  importing  the  masculine  gender  shall  be 
deemed  and  taken  to  include  females,  .  .  .  unless  the 
contrary  as  to  gender  ....  is  expressly  provided."'  In 
order  to  test  their  rights  under  this  Act,  a  large  number  of 
women  attempted  to  get  their  names  placed  on  the  register  of 
voters.  Their  claims  were  rejected  by  the  revising  barrister. 
The  most  famous  case,  that  of  'Chorlton  v.  Lings,  was 
argued  before  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  1868.  The 
court  ruled  that  although  the  word  "  man  "  must  be  held  to 
include  women  when  the  observance  of  laws,  taxation,  and 
duties  were  concerned,  it  included  only  male  persons  when 
applied  to  the  franchise.2  After  this  decision  the  women 
could  hope  to  secure  the  franchise  only  by  act  of  Parliament. 

The  early  movement  for  the  franchise  reached  its  height 
in  1884  when  the  Reform  Bill  was  before  Parliament.3 
This  bill  was  to  extend  the  franchise  to  about  2,000,000  ad- 
ditional men.  On  June  12  Mr.  Woodall  moved  an  amend- 
ment to  include  women,  within  the  scope  of  the  bill,  where 
the  right  of  voting:  for  the  members  of  Parliament  was  con- 
cerned. This  was  vigorously  opposed  by  Mr.  Gladstone  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  who  said  that,  "  the  vessel  car- 
ried as  big  a  cargo  as  it  could  safely  carry."  The  amend- 
ment was  rejected  by  a  majority  of  136  with  over  a  hundred 
of  the  supposed  friends  of  women's  suffrage  voting  against 
the  amendment  because  of  pressure  from  the  Government.4 

The  so-called  friends  of  women's  suffrage  were  in  the 

1  /j  6- 14  Viet.,  c.  21,  s.  4. 

•L.  R.  4  C.  P.  374- 

'The  first  bill  on  women's  suffrage  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Jacob  Bright 
in  1870.  It  carried  on  the  second  reading  by  vote  of  124  to  91.  In  the 
committee  it  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Gladstone  and  defeated. 

4  Hansard  (Parliamentary  Debates)  3rd  series,  vol.  289:  1942-64;  voL 
299 : 92-204 ;  Murdoch,  op.  cit.,  p.  283 ;  Seymour,  op.  cit.,  p.  477. 


30  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [236 

majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  this  was  in  con- 
sequence a  great  setback  for  the  cause.  It  was  almost 
twenty  years  before  the  question  came  again  prominently 
before  the  country.  A  few  staunch  supporters,  however, 
continued  the  agitation,  and  not  a  year  passed  without  the 
presentation  of  either  a  bill  or  resolution  on  the  subject. 
It  was  during  these  years  that  a  program  of  education  was 
carried  on  by  the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  in  an 
undemonstrative  way  which  laid  the  foundation  for  far 
greater  advancement  in  later  years.  Women  also  began  to 
take  a  more  active  part  in  political  affairs,  which  developed 
their  political  sagacity  and  their  knowledge  of  politics  as 
practiced  by  the  dominant  parties.  They  gained  invaluable 
political  experiences  in  the  Primrose  League  and  in  the 
Women's  Liberal  Federation.  These  organizations  were 
not  primarily  for  the  advancement  of  women's  suffrage,  but 
in  many  instances  they  were  used  as  partisan  auxiliary 
organizations  to  the  Conservative  and  Liberal  parties. 

In  1897  a  decisive  forward  step  was  taken  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies. 
The  National  Union  was  formed  by  the  amalgamation  of 
some  sixteen  women's  suffrage  societies  and  its  sole  purpose 
was  to  work  for  women's  suffrage  on  a  nonpartisan  basis. 
It  was  the  policy  of  the  organization  to  place  the  question 
"  in  such  a  position  that  no  Government  of  whatever  party 
[would]  be  able  to  touch  questions  relating  to  representa- 
tion, without  at  the  same  time  removing  the  electional  dis- 
abilities of  women."  l  This  union  became  the  great  con- 
structive force  of  the  nonmilitant  suffrage  workers. 

There  had  been  a  growing  feeling  for  several  years 
among  the  more  aggressive  of  the  women's  suffrage  workers 
that  nothing  practical  could  be  gained  through  the  con- 

'Metcalfe,  Woman's  Effort,  p.  17. 


237]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         3j 

tinuation  of  their  work  in  connection  with  the  two  dominant 
political  parties.  A  great  many  of  them  had  become 
identified  with  the  Independent  Labor  Party  largely  because 
this  party  admitted  women  to  membership  on  equal  terms 
with  men.  These  recruits  were  mainly  from  the  middle  and 
labor  classes. 

The  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union,  the  organiza- 
tion which  was  destined  to  play  such  a  conspicuous  part  in 
the  fight  for  women's  suffrage,  was  formed  on  October  10, 
1903.  It  was  revolutionary  in  its  inception  and  methods. 
Mrs.  Pankhurst  and  her  daughter,  Christabel,  had  been 
for  years  enthusiastic  workers  for  the  cause  of  women's 
suffrage.  They  had  become  convinced  that  a  more  pro- 
gressive and  radical  program  must  be  adopted  if  women 
were  ever  to  gain  their  political  rights.  The  organization 
was  effected  at  the  home  of  Mrs.  Pankhurst  in  Manchester. 
Almost  all  the  women  at  the  first  meeting  were  working 
women,  although  it  was  determined  as  a  definite  policy  that 
the  Union  should  be  independent  of  both  class  and  party. 
The  program  of  action  called  for  vigorous  political  methods, 
and  not  simply  for  the  use  of  passive  propaganda.1 

The  purpose  and  character  of  the  organization  have  been 
clearly  described  by  Mrs.  Pankhurst  herself.  She  states: 
"  There  was  little  formality  about  joining  the  Union.  Any 
woman  could  become  a  member  by  paying  a  shilling,  but  at 
the  same  time  she  was  required  to  sign  a  declaration  of  loyal 
adherence  to  our  policy  and  a  pledge  not  to  work  for  any 
political  party  until  the  women's  vote  was  won.  .  .  .  More- 
over, if  at  any  time  a  member  or  a  group  of  members,  loses 
faith  in  our  policy;  if  any  one  begins  to  suggest  that  any 
other  policy  ought  to  be  substituted,  or  if  she  tries  to  con- 
fuse the  issue  by  adding  other  policies,  she  ceases  at  once  to 

1    Pankhurst,  My  Own  Story,  p.  38. 


32  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [238 

be  a  member. . .  We  do  not  believe  in  the  effectiveness  of  the 
ordinary  suffrage  organization.  The  Women's  Social  and 
Political  Union  is  not  hampered  by  a  complexity  of  rules. 
We  have  no  constitution  and  by-laws;  nothing  to  be 
amended  or  tinkered  with  or  quarrelled  over  at  an  annual 
meeting.  In  fact,  we  have  no  annual  meeting,  no  business 
sessions,  no  election  of  officers.  The  Women's  Social  and 
Political  Union  is  simply  a  suffrage  army  in  the  field.  It 
is  purely  a  volunteer  army  and  no  one  is  obliged  to  remain 
in  it.  Indeed  we  don't  want  anybody  to  remain  in  it  who 
does  not  ardently  'believe  in  the  policy  of  the  army.  The 
foundation  of  our  policy  is  opposition  to  a  Government 
which  refuses  votes  to  women.  To  support  by  word  or 
deed  a  Government  hostile  to  women's  suffrage  is  simply  to 
invite  them  to  go  on  being  hostile."  i 

Slack's  Women's  Suffrage  Bill  of  1905 

The  first  work  of  propaganda  and  organization  was 
among  the  women  workers  of  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire. 
The  organization  grew  in  strength  so  rapidly  that  at  the 
Annual  Conference  of  the  Independent  Labor  Party  in  1904 
the  Administrative  Council  was  directed  to  prepare  a  bill 
for  the  enfranchisement  of  women,  to  be  introduced  into 
Parliament  the  following  session.2  To  get  a  friend  of 
women's  suffrage  to  introduce  the  bill  was  a  rather  difficult 
task,  but  finally  Mr.  Bamford  Slack,  who  held  the  four- 
teenth place  in  the  ballot,  was  induced  to  sponsor  the 
measure.  The  bill  was  accordingly  scheduled  as  the  second 
order  of  the  day  for  Friday,  May  12,  1905.  The  women's 
suffrage  workers  were  undaunted  in  their  efforts  to  bring 
pressure  upon  their  friends  to  support  the  measure.  They 
induced  a  large  delegation  of  women  to  attend  the  debate 

1  Pankhurst,  My  Own  Story,  pp.  58-59. 
'Pankhurst,  The  Suffragette,  pp.  7-10. 


239]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         33 

to  give  support  and  weight  to  their  cause,  for  it  had  been 
eight  years  since  there  had  been  a  women's  suffrage  bill 
introduced  in  the  Commons. 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  resorted  to  familiar  parliamen- 
tary tactics  in  order  to  prevent  full  consideration  of  the 
question.  The  first  order  of  the  afternoon  session  was  an 
unimportant  measure  which  required  carts  to  carry  tail 
lights  at  night.  The  debate  on  this  bill  began  at  12  o'clock 
and  lasted  until  4:30  P.  M.,  being  purposely  drawn  out  in 
order  to  defeat  the  women's  suffrage  bill.  This  left  only 
thirty  minutes  for  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Slack's  measure. 
The  bill  provided  merely  that  women  should  exercise  the 
right  of  franchise  on  the  same  basis  as  men  under  the  exist- 
ing law.1  He  summarized  the  arguments  for  women's  suf- 
frage by  saying  that,  "  their  claim  was  based  on  the  eternal 
principles  of  liberty,  equality,  equity,  and  justice,  and  also 
of  national  morality  and  righteousness — principles  to  which 
this  House  could  not  for  long  consent  to  turn  a  deaf  ear."  : 
The  necessity  of  the  franchise  to  protect  the  economic  in- 
terests of  women  was  strongly  emphasized  by  the  supporters 
of  the  bill. 

The  chief  argument  advanced  against  women's  suffrage 
was  that  the  state  wras  ultimately  based  upon  force  and  that 
the  duty  of  citizenship  implied  the  ability  to  protect 
the  state  in  the  capacity  of  soldiers  and  policemen.  The 
bill  was  opposed  on  the  ground  also  that  it  would  be  intol- 
erable for  the  state  to  be  dominated  by  women,  as  would 
be  the  case  because  they  outnumbered  the  men. 

At  the  close  of  the  debate  the  Speaker  declined  to  put  the 
question  and  the  sitting  adjourned  without  a  vote.  The 
bill  came  up  for  discussion  again  late  in  the  afternoon  on 
June  23,  and  was  debated  for  a  short  time,  but  the  Speaker 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1905,  vol.  v,  Bill  3. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  146:  221. 


34  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [240 

again  refused  to  put  the  question  and  no  vote  was  taken. 
By  these  parliamentary  manoeuvers  the  bill  was  prevented 
from  ever  coming  to  a  vote. 

The  women  who  had  witnessed  the  debate  from  behind 
the  Grille  in  the  ladies'  gallery  became  exasperated  at  the 
dilatory  tactics  which  had  been  used  and  the  insulting  way 
in  which  thev  had  been  treated  by  their  opponents.  On  the 
suggestion  of  Mrs.  Pankhurst  they  hurried  outside  to  hold 
a  meeting  of  protest  against  their  treatment  by  the  Govern- 
ment. Mrs.  Wolstenholm-Elmy,  the  oldest  worker  in  the 
cause  of  women's  suffrage,  began  to  address  the  women 
who  crowded  around  her.  Almost  immediately  the  police  in- 
terfered, broke  up  the  meeting,  and  ordered  them  to  disperse. 
Finally  they  were  granted  the  privilege  of  holding  a  meeting 
at  the  Broad  Sanctuary  near  the  gates  of  Westminster 
Abbey.  Here  a  resolution  was  adopted  condemning  the 
procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons  which  made  it  pos- 
sible for  a  small  minority  to  prevent  a  vote  from  being 
taken  upon  the  Enfranchisement  Bill  and  calling  upon  the 
Government  to  enact  the  bill  into  law.  This  was  the  first 
aggressive  act  of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union,1 
but  it  was  only  the  beginning  of  a  desperate  struggle  for 
political  rights  by  a  great  body  of  citizens.  Until  this  time 
the  question  of  women's  suffrage  played  no  important 
part  in  politics  and  was  given  no  space  in  the  public  press. 

The  Beginning  of  the  Militant  Movement 

During  the  summer  of  1905  two  incidents  occurred  which 
made  a  profound  impression  upon  the  leaders  of  the  Union. 
The  Government  was  in  a  very  weak  position  owing  to  dis- 
sension in  the  Cabinet  over  the  tariff  reforms  advocated  by 
Mr.  Chamberlain.  There  was  also  the  criticism  of  the 
policy  of  the  Government  in  conducting  the  South  African 

'Pankhurst,  My  Own  Story,  p.  43. 


24I  ]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         35 

War.  A  general  business  depression  prevailed,  especially 
in  the  cotton  trade,  which  resulted  in  distress  in  many  in- 
dustrial centers.  From  these  districts  came  the  demand  that 
the  Government  take  some  steps  to  cope  with  unemployment 
and  to  relieve  the  distress  of  the  starving  workingmen. 
The  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Walter  Long,  on  behalf  of  the 
Government,  to  deal  with  this  matter  had  been  so  strongly 
opposed  bv  members  of  the  Conservative  party  that  it  was 
finally  announced  that  no  further  time  could  be  given  to  it. 
In  the  midst  of  this  discussion  Mr.  Balfour  announced  that 
a  crisis  had  arisen  in  the  controversy  between  the  Scottish 
Free  Church  and  the  United  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 
The  Scottish  Churches  Bill  was  introduced  to  settle  this 
dispute,  and  hurried  through  its  various  stages  in  spite  of 
the  limited  time. 

The  leaders  who  had  been  attempting  to  get  the  unem- 
ployment bill  passed  proceeded  at  once  to  create  a  crisis  that 
would  compel  the  Government  to  rush  their  bill  through. 
At  a  demonstration  in  Manchester  the  marchers  came  in 
conflict  with  >the  police  and  held  their  protest  meeting  in 
spite  of  police  orders.  The  seriousness  of  this  was  called  to 
the  attention  of  the  Government  and  the  Unemployed  Work- 
man's Bill,  which  the  Government  had  set  aside  for  lack  of 
time,  was  taken  up  and  hurried  through  the  remaining 
stages. 

The  leaders  of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  "Union 
took  their  cue  from  these  events  and  determined  to  set  about 
to  create  a  crisis  which  would  compel  the  Government  to 
grant  suffrage  to  women.1  After  about  forty  years  of 
peaceful  agitation  the  more  aggressive  women  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  useless  to  expect  anything  but  verbal 
sympathy  from  the  leaders  of  the  great  political  parties. 

1Pankhurst,  Suffragette,  p.  18. 


36  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [242 

Neither  party  would  sponsor  their  cause  as  had  been  done 
in  other  reform  movements.  The  press  gave  them  no  real 
support.  They,  therefore,  ceased  to  ask  the  vote  as  a 
favor  and  began  to  demand  it  as  a  right.  The  new  spirit 
manifested  itself  in  the  form  of  interruption  of  meetings 
and  in  the  holding  of  protest  meetings.  This  was  a  mild 
form  of  militancy. 

The  campaign  and  election  of  1906  offered  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  the  women  to  press  their  claims  upon  the 
leaders  of  the  parties.  It  is  a  custom  in  English  political 
meetings  for  persons  in  the  audience  to  interrupt  the  speaker 
and  ask  questions.  The  leaders  of  the  Women's  Social  and 
Political  Union  began  to  avail  themselves  of  this  privilege. 
The  Liberal  campaign  was  launched  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  at 
Manchester  on  October  13.  Christabel  Pankhurst  and 
Annie  Kennev  attended  this  meeting  to  secure  the  pledge 
of  the  Liberal  party  for  women's  suffrage.  They  asked  the 
speaker  if  the  party  would  grant  women's  suffrage.  Being 
ignored  they  repeatedly  pressed  their  question. 

The  audience  finally  became  exasperated  by  these  interrup- 
tions and  the  women  were  seized  by  the  police  and  ejected 
from  the  hall  amid  the  shouts  and  cheers  of  the  onlookers. 
They  decided  immediately  to  hold  an  indignation  meeting. 
They  had  been  speaking  only  a  few  minutes  when  they 
were  arrested  by  the  police  and  taken  to  the  Town  Hall. 
Both  were  charged  with  obstruction  and  with  assaulting  the 
police.  The  next  morning  they  were  brought  before  the 
police  court  and  both  were  found  guilty.  Miss  Pankhurst 
was  ordered  to  pay  a  fine  of  ten  shillings  or  to  go  to  prison 
for  seven  days,  and  Miss  Kenney  five  shilling  or  three  days' 
imprisonment.  They  both  refused  to  pay  their  fines  and 
were  hurried  off  to  prison.  This  episode  marks  the  beginn- 
ing of  the  real  militant  movement  and  the  long  list  of  im- 
prisonments for  the  cause  of  women's  suffrage.1 

1  Pankhurst,  Suffragette,  pp.  24-37. 


243]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         37 

During  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1906-07  the  members 
of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  conducted  a 
carefully  planned  campaign  of  questioning  the  Liberal  speak- 
ers at  all  important  meetings.  The  display  of  the  white 
banner  with  the  inscription  "  Votes  for  Women "  was  ex- 
pected at  every  important  meeting.  The  Times  in  com- 
menting upon  the  meeting  of  Mr.  Asquith  at  Queen's  Hall 
on  December  19,  1905,  said  that  the  meeting  was  "  disturbed 
only  by  the  now  inevitable  lady  interrupter."  In  spite  of 
their  efforts  thev  were  unable  to  secure  the  pledges  of  the 
leaders  of  the  party  to  support  their  cause.  The  National 
Union  worked  in  a  more  quiet  and  nonspectacular  way 
during  the  election  and  attempted  to  secure  the  personal 
pledge  of  the  candidates  for  support.  In  all,  about  five 
hundred  candidates  expressed  their  belief  in  some  form  of 
women's  suffrage.1 

The  election,  as  has  been  stated,  resulted  in  an  overwhelm- 
ing victory  for  the  Liberal  forces.  But  as  subsequent 
events  testified  this  did  not  apparently  improve  the  chances 
for  women's  suffrage  because  the  Government  refused  to 
make  it  a  part  of  its  program.  It  had  not  yet  become  a 
political  question  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  so  considered. 

As  soon  as  the  election  was  over  the  Women's  Social  and 
Political  Union  began  to  lay  extensive  plans  to  place  their 
demands  before  the  new  Government.  The  first  step  taken 
was  an  attempt  to  arouse  the  women  of  London,  the  initial 
appeal  being  made  to  the  working  class.  The  idea  wa3 
conceived  of  a  big  demonstration  in  the  form  of  a  parade 
on  the  day  of  the  opening  of  Parliament,  February  19, 
1906.  A  procession  was  accordingly  organized,  and  they 
marched  to  Caxton  Hall,  Westminster,  for  a  public  meeting. 
In  the  midst  of  the  meeting  it  was  reported  that  the  King's 

1Metcalfe,  op.  cit.,  p.  24. 


38  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [244 

speech  contained  no  reference  to  the  question  of  women's 
suffrage.  At  once  a  resolution  was  proposed  condemn- 
ing the  omission  and  demanding  that  the  Government  im- 
mediately introduce  a  measure  giving  parliamentary  votes 
to  women  on  the  same  terms  as  to  men.  The  resolution 
was  carried  bv  acclamation.  The  meeting  adjourned  and 
proceeded  en  masse  to  the  Strangers'  entrance  of  the  House 
to  plead  with  their  friends  to  bestir  themselves  in  behalf  of 
the  women's  cause.  The  Government,  having  taken  due 
precaution,  had  ordered  the  doors  closed;  they  were  per- 
mitted only  to  send  separate  deputations  of  twenty  to  inter- 
view members.1  But  they  received  no  assurance  that  Par- 
liament intended  to  grant  the  vote  to  women. 

This  first  procession  to  Parliament  was  apparently  barren 
of  results;  the  women  were  disappointed  and  bewildered. 
They  did  not  seem  to  realize  at  that  time  the  tremendous 
prejudice  and  lethargy  which  prevailed  against  their  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  public.  They  did  not  appreciate 
that  the  Government  seldom  acts  in  such  matters  except  in 
response  to  great  popular  demand.  Their  tasks  were  first 
to  convert  the  great  mass  of  people  and  then  to  bring  pres- 
sure on  the  Government  for  action. 

During  this  session  the  question  of  women's  suffrage  was 
debated  briefly  on  two  different  occasions,  the  first  time 
when  a  bill  was  introduced2  by  Sir  Charles  Dilke  and 
later  when  a  resolution  was  presented 3  by  Mr.  Keir  Hardie. 
In  each  case  only  a  short  time  was  allotted  for  the  debate 
and  the  Speaker  refused  to  put  the  question  to  a  vote. 

In  the  meantime  repeated  attempts  had  been  made  by 

1  The  Times,  February  20,  1906,  p.  10. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  152:  1448-50;  Parliamentary 
Papers,  1006,  vol.  ii.  Bill  20. 
1  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  155 :  1570-2. 


245]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         39 

deputations  to  see  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  but  he 
had  refused  to  receive  them.  A  memorial  signed  by  nearly 
two  hundred  members  of  Parliament  had  been  presented  to 
him  asking  that  he  receive  a  deputation  of  members  of 
Parliament  on  the  subject  of  women's  suffrage.  Finally 
he  agreed  to  receive  a  deputation  on  May  19.  Plans  were 
accordingly  made  for  a  huge  demonstration  including  all 
parties,  societies,  and  organizations  which  supported  women's 
suffrage.  The  deoutation  included  three  hundred  and  fifty 
persons  representing  about  twenty-five  organizations.1  The 
deputation  was  introduced  by  Sir  Charles  McLaren.2 

In  response  to  the  speeches  made  by  representatives  of 
such  a  large  proportion  of  the  women's  interest  of  the 
country,  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman  said  that  women 
had  alreadv  demonstrated  their  ability  along  many  political 
lines  in  connection  with  school  boards,  work  on  royal  com- 
missions, and  departmental  commissions.  He  admitted 
that  in  his  opinion,  they  had  made  before  the  country  "a 
conclusive  and  irrefutable  argument."  In  speaking  for  the 
Government  he  said  that  he  had  only  one  thing  to  preach 
to  them  and  that  was  the  virtue  of  patience.  He  went  on 
to  explain  that  the  Cabinet  was  divided  upon  the  question, 
as  the  Cabinet  of  previous  Governments  had  been,  and  that 
it  would  be  impossible  for  him  under  the  circumstances  to 

1  The  Times,  May  21,  1906,  p.  7. 

*  Among  the  other  speakers  was  Miss  Emily  Davies,  who  had  sub- 
mitted to  John  Stuart  Mill  the  first  petition  for  women's  suffrage  ever 
presented  to  Parliament.  Mrs.  Eva  McLaren,  Miss  Margaret  Ashton. 
and  Mrs.  Holland  Rainy  represented  respectively  some  80,000,  99,000 
and  14,000  women  Liberals  in  England  and  Scotland.  Mrs.  Glasson 
represented  425  branches  consisting  of  22,000  members  of  the  Women's 
Cooperative  Guild.  Mrs.  Watson  represented  the  Scottish  Qiristian 
Union  of  the  British  Women's  Temperance  Association  with  a  member- 
ship of  52,000  and  Mrs.  Mary  Bateson  presented  a  petition  for  the 
franchise  signed  by  1,530  women  graduates. 


4o  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [246 

make  any  pledge  for  the  Government  to  carry  out  their 
demands.  He  suggested,  however,  that  if  they  used 
moderation  the  growing  interest  of  the  country  in  their  de- 
mands insured  its  success  at  no  distant  future.  Such  a  pro- 
nouncement was  a  great  disappointment  to  the  members  of 
the  deputation;  they  wanted  support  from  the  Government. 

In  the  afternoon  the  deputation  held  a  meeting  in  Exeter 
Hall.  A  resolution  was  adopted  which  urged  women  to  in- 
crease their  efforts  to  convince  the  Government  of  the  justice 
of  their  cause  and  it  requested  the  Prime  Minister  to  grant 
a  day  during  the  session  for  the  discussion  of  a  motion  on 
the  subject.  A  mass  meeting  was  also  held  in  the  afternoon 
in  Trafalgar  Square  which  was  attended  by  about  7,000 
people,  and  vigorous  protests  were  voiced  against  the  Gov- 
ernment because  of  its  policy. 

The  Prime  Minister  had  given  as  his  reason  for  the  re- 
fusal to  make  a  women's  suffrage  bill  a  Government  measure 
that  certain  members  of  the  Cabinet  were  opposed  to  it. 
The  supporters,  therefore,  began  to  direct  their  energies  to- 
ward the  conversion  of  these  recalcitrant  members.  Mr. 
Asquith  and  Mr.  Lloyd  George  were  particularly  singled 
out.  They  repeatedly  refused  to  receive  deputations.  The 
women  were  not  to  be  thwarted  in  their  efforts  and  began 
to  use  more  vigorous  methods  which  often  resulted  in  the 
arrest  and  imprisonment  of  the  demonstrators. 

With  the  use  of  these  militant  tactics  a  cleavage  began 
to  develop  among  the  suffrage  workers.  Those  who  adop- 
ted the  militant  methods  were  known  as  Suffragettes,  while 
those  who  continued  to  use  constitutional  methods  were 
known  as  Suffragists.  The  Suffragists,  maintaining  that  it 
was  a  very  small  number  of  women  who  were  bringing  dis- 
credit upon  the  whole  suffrage  movement,  depreciated  and 
apologized  for  these  militant  acts.  The  militants,  however, 
accomplished  at  least  one  thing.  They  brought  their  cause 


247]    EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         4j 

before  the  public,  and  hardly  a  paper  appeared  that  did  not 
contain  an  account  of  a  suffrage  meeting  or  an  open  letter 
on  some  phase  of  the  suffrage  question.  That  the  militants 
appreciated  the  seriousness  of  the  task  which  they  had  un- 
dertaken was  shown  by  a  letter  of  Mrs.  Pethick  Lawrence 
in  which  she  declared  that  a  life  and  death  struggle  between 
the  women  and  the  Government  had  begun.  She  em- 
phasized the  fact  that  there  was  no  turning  back  until  the 
Government  granted  concessions.  The  old  constitutional 
methods  had  failed  to  bring  results  and  they  had  determined 
to  try  new  methods.1 

During  the  summer  of  1906  there  were  an  increasing 
number  of  interruptions  of  public  meetings ;  there  were  also 
parades  and  demonstrations,  all  of  which  tended  to  bring 
the  question  more  prominently  before  the  public.  At  the 
reopening  of  Parliament  another  attempt  was  made  to 
obtain  a  promise  from  the  Prime  Minister  that  the  Govern- 
ment would  introduce  a  women's  suffrage  bill  during  the 
session.  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman  refused  to  re- 
ceive the  deputation.  A  meeting  of  protest  followed  in  the 
Central  Hall.  The  women  were  soon  ejected  and  a  second 
attempt  was  made  in  the  Old  Palace  Yard.  This  was  also 
broken  up  and  resulted  in  the  arrest  of  ten  of  the  leaders 
who  were  later  sentenced  to  two  months'  imprisonment.2 
The  imprisonment  of  the  suffrage  leaders  and  their  treat- 
ment as  regular  criminals,  rather  than  as  political  prisoners, 
caused  a  great  deal  of  discussion  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
since  friends  of  the  movement  addressed  questions  to  the 
Government  concerning  their  treatment  and  care.  This  was 
a  subject  of  constant  agitation  and  a  source  of  frequent 
embarrassment  to  the  Government. 

1  Evening  News,  June  25,  1906. 
*The  Times,  October  24,  1906,  p.  n. 


42  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [248 

On  February  8,  1907,  the  National  Union  of  Women's 
Suffrage  Societies,  composed  of  thirty  societies,  was  re- 
organized to  carry  on  a  more  vigorous  educational  and  prop- 
agandist campaign  along  nonmilitant  lines.  The  next  day 
they  held  a  big  demonstration  in  Hyde  Park  and  between 
3, OCX)  and  4,000  women  marched  in  the  parade  in  spite  of 
rain.  The  suffrage  supporters  had  by  this  time  definitely 
decided  that  they  would  on  every  possible  occasion  demon- 
strate to  the  Government  the  popular  support  of  their  cause 
and  convince  it  of  their  determined  purpose  to  obtain  the 
franchise. 

Dickinson's  Women's  Enfranchisement  bill  of  ipo? 

In  the  ballot  for  place  for  introducing  private  members' 
bills,  Mr.  Dickinson  secured  the  first  place  and  agreed  to 
introduce  a  women's  suffrage  measure.1  It  came  up  for 
a  second  reading  on  March  8.  A  great  deal  of  care  had 
been  taken  by  those  interested  in  women's  suffrage  that  the 
bill  should  be  of  a  conservative  nature  so  that  it  would  en- 
counter as  little  opposition  as  possible.  It  introduced,  there- 
fore, no  new  qualifications  for  the  franchise ;  it  simply  pro- 
vided that  in  all  acts  relating  to  the  qualifications  and  regis- 
tration of  voters  where  words  which  import  the  masculine 
gender  were  used,  the  same  should  be  held  to  include  women. 
In  all  purposes  connected  with  the  right  of  registration  or 
voting  it  further  stated  that  women  could  not  be  disqualified 
on  account  of  marriage.2  The  number  of  women  who 
would  be  enfranchised  by  this  bill  and  the  classes  they  would 
represent  gave  rise  to  considerable  discussion.  It  wasi 
estimated  that  it  would  include  between  one  and  two  million 
women.  The  real  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  had  in- 
vestigated this  question  thoroughly  and  believed  that  it 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1907,  vol.  iv.  Bill  8. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  170:  1102-9. 


249]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         43 

would  include  a  larger  percentage  of  women  of  the  working 
class  than  of  any  other  class.1 

Mr.  Dickinson  maintained  that  the  chief  purpose  of  the 
bill  was  to  adopt  the  principle  that  neither  sex  nor  marriage 
should  be  a  disqualification  from  the  right  to  vote.  He 
urged  that  it  was  especially  necessary  that  the  women  have 
the  right  of  franchise  in  order  to  protect  and  advance  their 
economic  interests  which  were  a  great  financial  and  political 
asset  to  the  nation.  Sir  H.  Campbell-Bannerman,  speaking 
early  in  the  debate,  said  that  the  question  was  one  on  which 
there  was  no  pretense  of  unanimity  or  consensus  of  opinion 
in  the  Cabinet  and  under  the  circumstances  it  was  for  the 
House  to  take  its  own  course  as  decided  by  the  individual 
views  of  its  members ;  the  Government  would  not  interfere. 
Speaking  personally  he  indicated  his  intention  of  voting  for 
the  bill  although  he  objected  to  this  particular  measure  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  too  limited  in  its  scope. 

The  rejection  of  the  bill  was  moved  by  Mr.  Whitehead. 
He  based  his  opposition  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  as  framed 
it  would  enfranchise  the  middle  and  upper  classes  and  was, 
therefore,  undemocratic.  This  argument  was  advanced 
by  most  of  the  members  who  spoke  against  the  bill.  It 
was  evident,  however,  that  they  were  not  concerned  so 
much  with  the  scope  of  the  bill  as  they  were  opposed  to 
women's  suffrage  under  any  condition ;  they  used  this  demo- 
cratic argument  to  conceal  their  real  attitude  toward  the 
question.  Before  the  close  of  the  debate  it  became  ap- 
parent that  those  in  opposition  would  prevent  a  vote  if  pos- 

1  Mr.  Dickinson  pointed  out  that  in  1904  in  his  constituency  there  were 
1,014  women  electors.  Of  these  3  per  cent  had  belonged  to  the  wealthy 
class,  37  per  cent  to  the  middle  class  andi  60  per  cent  to  the  working 
class.  The  census  taken  by  the  Independent  Labor  Party  in  1904  had 
shown  that  82  per  cent  of  the  women  on  the  Municipal  Register 
belonged  to  the  working  class  and  the  investigations  made  in  connection 
with  drafting  this  bill  substantiated  these  general  conclusions. 


44  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [250 

sible.  Mr.  Dickinson  arose  three  times  before  five  o'clock 
and  attempted  to  put  the  question  but  the  Speaker  refused. 
Amid  cries  of  "  Divide,"  the  debate  was  adjourned  without 
taking  a  vote ;  the  bill  was  talked  to  death. 

A  few  days  later  a  deputation  of  Liberals  consisting  of 
Sir  Charles  McLaren,  Mr.  Dickinson,  Mr.  Howard,  Mr. 
Lennant,  and  Mr.  Snowden  called  upon  the  Prime  Minister, 
and  attempted  to  get  the  Government  to  grant  facilities  for 
the  bill.  This  the  Prime  Minister  said  would  be  an  un- 
precedented procedure  for  a  private  members'  bill  at  this 
stage.  Since  the  Government  refused  to  grant  conces- 
sions the  supporters  decided  to  concentrate  their  attention 
and  efforts  on  a  resolution  dealing  with  women's  suffrage 
to  be  introduced  by  Sir  Charles  McLaren.  Mr.  Dickinson 
consented  to  withdraw  his  bill  in  order  to  clear  the  way 
for  discussion  of  this  resolution. 

Sir  Charles  McLaren  accordingly  gave  notice  that  on 
March  27,  he  would  introduce  a  resolution  for  the  en- 
franchisement of  women.  Subsequently  Mr.  Maurice  Levy 
gave  notice  of  his  intention  of  introducing  on  March  26,  a 
bill  to  confer  the  franchise  on  adult  men  and  women. 
There  was  a  rule  of  the  House  that  a  resolution  could  not 
be  introduced  when  there  was  a  bill  before  the  House 
covering  the  same  subject.1  The  Speaker  requested  that 
the  bill  be  withdrawn  to  permit  the  discussion  of  the  resolu- 
tion. Mr.  Levy  refused  to  acquiesce  in  this.  The  Speaker 
held  that  while  he  believed  that  such  a  procedure  would  be 
an  abuse  of  the  privilege  yet  it  could  not  be  prohibited.  The 
resolution  was  thus  effectually  "  blocked  "  by  a  dummy  bill. 
To  the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  this  was  only  another 
of  the  tricks  of  the  opponents  to  use  the  machinery  of  the 
House  to  prevent  discussion  of  the  question.2  Two  other 

1  This  rule  was  changed  in  1914. 

2  In  the  meantime  on  March  20,  another  deputation  had  attempted  to 


25 1  ]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         45 

bills  to  grant  women's  suffrage  were  introduced  during 
1907  by  Sir  Charles  Dilke,  but  neither  of  them  ever  came  up 
for  discussion.1 

In  order  to  impress  upon  the  Government  the  fact  that 
women's  suffrage  was  a  live  political  issue  the  supporters 
adopted  a  consistent  policy  of  fighting  the  by-elections. 
The  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  opposed  all  Liberal 
candidates  regardless  of  their  attitude  towards  women's  suf- 
frage while  the  National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage 
Societies  adopted  the  nonpartisan  policy  of  supporting  those 
candidates  who  would  sponsor  their  cause.  In  such  cases 
it  is  always  difficult  to  determine  definitely  the  causes  of  the 
election  results;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  in  most  of 
the  constituencies  where  fights  were  made  there  was  a  dis- 
tinct falling  off  in  the  Liberal  vote.  The  loss  at  Cocker- 
mouth  was  1,446;  at  Huddersfield  540;  in  Northwest  Derby- 
shire i, 02 1 ;  South  Aberdeen  3,001 ;  Hexham  231 ;  Stepney 
503;  at  Rutland  202;  Jarrow  4,573;  Colne  Valley  2,204; 
Northwest  Staffordshire  271 ;  Bury  St.  Edmunds  306,  mak- 
ing a  total  loss  to  the  Government  at  by-elections  of  13,300 
votes.2  While  only  a  part  of  this  loss  may  be  attributed  to 
the  opposition  of  the  suffrage  forces,  the  campaigns  did 

reach  the  House  of  Commons.  They  encountered  the  opposition  of  the 
police,  a  struggle  resulted,  arrests  were  made,  and  the  next  day  sixty- 
seven  persons  were  sentenced  to  prison. 

'One  concession,  however,  was  made  to  women  in  1907  which  had 
to  do  with  local  qualifications.  An  act  was  passed  which  provided  that 
women  could  not  be  disqualified  by  reason  of  sex  or  marriage  from 
being  elected  or  being  a  councillor  or  alderman  of  the  council  of  any 
county  or  borough,  but  it  provided  that  a  woman  could  not  be  elected 
as  chairman  of  the  county  council  or  mayor  of  a  borough.  (Parlia- 
mentary Papers,  1907,  vol.  iv,  Bill  297).  This  repealed  the  part  of  the 
Act  of  1899  which  provided  that  women  were  not  eligible  for  these 
offices.  They  had  had  the  right  to  vote  for  such  offices  but  not  to 
hold  them. 

*  Pankhurst,  Suffragette,  p.  166. 


46  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [252 

serve  to  bring  the  question  before  the  electorate  more  pro- 
minently and  gave  the  women  valuable  electioneering  ex- 
perience.1 

Stanger's  Women's  Enfranchisement  Bill  of  1908 

The  suffrage  forces  were  fortunate  again  in  1908  in  se- 
curing a  good  place  for  a  private  members'  bill.  Mr. 
Stanger  introduced  his  bill  for  the  enfranchisement  of 
women  on  February  3,  and  it  came  up  for  a  second  reading 
on  February  28.2  The  bill  was  the  same  in  provision  and 
scope  as  that  introduced  by  Mr.  Dickinson  in  the  previous 
session.  This  course  was  followed  in  order  to  encounter  as 
little  opposition  as  possible  from  the  adult  suffragists  and 
the  more  conservative  reformers. 

Mr.  Gladstone,  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home  De- 
partment, made  a  very  significant  speech  in  view  of  the 
severe  criticism  of  his  department  because  of  the  way  it 
handled  the  suffragettes  in  their  raids  upon  the  House.  In 
speaking  of  the  policy  of  the  Government  in  regard  to  the 
bill  he  said  that  there  was  no  unanimity  of  opinion  in  the 
Cabinet  on  the  subject,  and  the  Government  would  leave 
the  decision  to  the  views  of  the  individual  members. 
Speaking  for  himself,  while  not  approving  all  phases  of  the 
bill,  he  pledged  his  vote  in  its  support. 

The  question  as  to  the  influence  which  the  militant  tactics 
were  having  upon  the  women's  suffrage  movement  began  to 
play  an  important  part  in  the  debate.  In  the  main  these 
methods  were  depreciated  quite  as  much  by  the  supporters  of 

1  During  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1907-8  repeated  deputations  visited 
the  prominent  members  of  the  Cabinet  presenting  their  cause  before 
them.  February  saw  new  outbreaks  of  the  militant  spirit  when  a 
deputation  attempted  to  reach  the  House  of  Commons.  As  a  result, 
on  the  morning  of  February  12,  forty-seven  persons  were  sentenced  to 
prison  and  two  days  later  their  number  was  increased  by  a  dozen  more. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  4th  series,  vol.  185:  212. 


253]    EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         47 

the  bill  as  by  the  opponents,  with  the  exception  that  the  sup- 
porters saw  in  the  movement  the  reaction  against  a  deep- 
seated  injustice  which  the  Government  must  remedy. 

The  rejection  of  the  bill  was  moved  by  Mr.  Cathcart 
Wason,  who  maintained  that  the  only  qualification  for  repre- 
sentation in  the  House  of  Commons  was  manhood  suffrage 
and  not  property.  He  laid  great  emphasis  upon  the  point 
that  the  chief  protection  of  the  state  rested  upon  force  and 
those  who  called  themselves  citizens  must  be  able  to  defend 
the  state  against  all  outward  attacks.  To  put  a  climax  to 
his  argument  he  added  that  the  right  to  vote  would  also 
carry  with  it  the  right  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Commons 
which  the  members  would  never  tolerate  because  it  would 
mean  a  divided  House.  Air.  Maurice  Levy,  Mr.  Clement 
Edwards  and  Mr.  Mallet  opposed  the  bill  on  the  grounds 
that  it  was  an  undemocratic  measure,  would  grant  the  right 
of  franchise  only  to  the  wealthy  women,  and  would  thereby 
increase  plural  voting. 

The  opponents  again  attempted  to  prevent  the  bill  from 
coming  to  a  vote  but  the  Speaker  put  the  question  and  the 
bill  passed  a  second  reading  by  a  vote  of  271  to  92,  the 
largest  majority  that  any  women's  suffrage  measure  had 
ever  received.  An  analysis  of  the  vote  shows  that  each 
party  gave  a  clear  majority  to  the  measure,  the  Socialists 
making  their  vote  unanimous.1  This,  however,  does  not 
adequately  represent  the  sentiment  of  the  Unionist  party  be- 

1  The  following  was  the  party  vote : 

For  Against 

Liberal  Labor  196  52 

L.  R.  C.  Socialist 24 

Unionists 33  28 

Nationalists  20  14 

273  94 

This  includes  the  Tellers.    Liberal  Magazine,  1908,  vol.  xvi,  p.  89. 


48  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [254 

cause  many  opponents  of  the  bill  remained  away  from  the 
session  while  most  of  those  in  favor  of  women's  suffrage 
were  in  attendance. 

The  bill  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  and, 
as  in  all  such  cases,  this  was  tantamount  to  withdrawal.1 
On  the  whole  this  was  the  most  serious  debate  on  the  sub- 
ject that  had  taken  place  up  to  that  time.  It  was  still 
more  or  less  of  an  academic  question,  for  no  one  actually 
thought  that  the  bill  would  become  a  law  during  the  ses- 
sion; yet  the  seriousness  of  the  situation  began  to  be 
evident  even  to  the  casual  observer.  The  Times,  an  im- 
placable opponent  of  the  cause,  assumed  a  more  moderate 
editorial  tone  and  at  least  conceded  some  justice  to  the 
cause  when  it  remarked  that,  "  In  general  the  level  of  debate 
showed  a  gravity  and  sense  of  responsibility  suitable  for  the 
discussion  of  what  is  a  most  important  problem."  ~  The 
Manchester  Guardian  indicated  the  real  situation  when  it 
stated  that  the  vote  in  the  House  did  not  represent  the 
feeling  in  the  country  as  a  whole  either  among  the  men  or 
the  women.3  While  the  members  of  the  House  had  been 
converted,  at  least  theoretically  to  the  cause,  the  country  at 
large  was  still  apathetic.  If  the  politicians  had  thought 
otherwise,  each  party  would  have  been  only  too  anxious  to 
sponsor  the  cause  in  order  to  gain  the  gratitude  of  the  newly 
enfranchised  electors,  and  thus  perpetuate  their  power. 
They  were  waiting  to  follow  the  country  rather  than  to 
lead  in  the  reform. 

1  So  little  parliamentary  time  is  reserved  for  private  members'  bills 
that  they  have  practically  no  chance  of  passing  unless  after  the  second 
reading  they  are  referred  to  a  standing  committee  which  avoids  the 
committee  stage  in  the  House.  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England 
(new  edition),  vol.  i,  pp.  311-14. 

1  Tlte  Times,  February  29,  1908,  p.  9. 

3  Manchester  Guardian,  February  29,  1908,  p.  28. 


255]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         49 

Deputation  to  Mr.  Asquith 

Following  the  resignation  of  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Ban- 
nerman  on  April  5,  1908,  due  to  ill  health,  Mr.  Asquith  be- 
came Prime  Minister.  The  Liberal  members  who  were  in 
favor  of  women's  suffrage  arranged  for  a  deputation  to  wait 
upon  the  new  Prime  Minister  to  ask  for  facilities  for  the 
Stanger  Bill,  or  at  least  to  get  a  promise  of  action  from  the 
Government.  The  deputation  consisted  of  sixty  persons,  all 
members  of  the  Liberal  party.  In  introducing  the  deputa- 
tion Mr.  Stanger  assured  Mr.  Asquith  that  they  were  all 
loyal  members  of  the  Liberal  party  and  had  no  desire  what- 
ever to  embarrass  the  position  of  the  Government.1  He 
repudiated  any  connection  or  sympathy  with  the  policy  or 
the  activities  of  the  suffragettes. 

In  reply  Mr.  Asquith  stated  that  it  would  be  impossible  for 
the  Government  to  give  a  week  or  even  two  or  three  days  to 
a  bill  which  was  not  of  its  own  initiative.  He  indicated, 
however,  that  an  imperative  obligation  rested  upon  the 
Government  to  introduce  during  the  existing  Parliament  a 
really  effective  scheme  of  electoral  reform  which  would 
alter  the  artificialities  and  delays  in  obtaining  qualifications 
for  the  franchise  and  which  would  abolish  the  system  of 
plural  voting.  When  the  Government  Reform  Bill  was 
introduced  he  said  that  it  would  be  within  the  power  of 
the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  "to  seek  to  introduce 
by  amendments,  or  by  extension,  the  object  they  desired." 
He  pledged  that  the  Government  would  not  resist  such 
amendments  for  the  simple  reason  that  probably  about  two- 
thirds  of  his  colleagues  in  the  Ministry  were  in  favor  of 
women's  suffrage.  The  House  would  be  free  to  make  any 
amendments  to  the  Reform  Bill  concerning  women's  suf- 
frage which  it  desired.  His  only  reservations  were  that 

1  The  Times,  May  21,  1908,  p.  10. 


5o  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [256 

any  such  amendments  must  be  along  democratic  lines  and 
have  the  overwhelming  support  of  the  women  of  the  country 
as  well  as  of  the  men.  He  also  gave  assurance  that  the 
bill  would  be  drafted  on  sufficiently  broad  lines  to  admit  of 
a  women's  suffrage  amendment. 

The  announcement  that  the  Government  intended  to  in- 
troduce a  Reform  Bill  which  would  not  include  a  women's 
suffrage  clause  tended  only  to  infuriate  the  militants.  The 
fact  that  opportunity  would  be  given  for  the  insertion  of 
such  an  amendment  did  not  satisfy  their  demands.  Miss 
Christabel  Pankhurst,  representing  the  Women's  Social  and 
Political  Union,  made  immediate  reply.  She  stated  that 
this  policy  only  confirmed  the  Union  in  its  determination  to 
fight  the  Government.  'She  insisted  that  nothing  less  than 
a  definite  pledge  of  action  during  the  present  session  would 
satisfy  the  Union.  Otherwise  they  would  continue  their 
hostility  to  the  Government  by  fighting  its  candidates  in  by- 
elections  and  by  the  use  of  militant  policies.  The  Women's 
Freedom  League,  which  in  1907  had  become  a  separate 
organization  from  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union, 
although  believing  in  militant  methods,  announced  that  the 
members  were  resolved  to  renew  and  would  continue  their 
militant  tactics  until  they  had  secured  a  definite  pledge  from 
the  Government  to  incorporate  women's  suffrage  as  part 
of  the  Government  measure.1 

The  Women's  Liberal  Federation,  which  was  at  the  time 
in  annual  session,  assumed  a  very  different  attitude  towards 
Mr.  Asquith's  statement.  Lady  Carlisle  who  presided  said : 
"That  was  a  glorious  day  of  rejoicing.  The  Prime 
Minister  had  opened  a  way  for  them  by  which  they  could 
enter  into  the  inheritance  from  which  they  had  been  too  long 
debarred.  The  Government  was  vindicated  and  stood  in  a 

1  The  Times,  May  22,  1908,  p.  10. 


257]    EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE        $i 

proud  position  in  which  they  desired  to  see  it,  free  from  re- 
proach in  regard  to  the  whole  democratic  creed." x  They  ac- 
cepted the  pledge  of  the  Government  in  full  faith  and  con- 
fidence and  moved  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Prime  Minister  for 
his  pledge  to  permit  a  women's  suffrage  amendment  to  be 
incorporated  in  the  proposed  Reform  Bill.  The  members 
of  the  League  were  urged  to  support  the  Liberal  candidates 
at  the  by-elections  and  secure  from  them  pledges  in  favor  of 
women's  suffrage. 

The  statement  of  Mr.  Asquith  that  a  bill  would  have  td 
be  supported  by  a  majority  of  the  women  caused  a  renewed 
effort  on  the  part  of  all  who  favored  women's  suffrage. 
It  also  aroused  more  intense  opposition  among  those  who 
opposed  the  movement.  It  became  a  contest  for  show  of 
strength.  There  was  accordingly  organized  a  National 
Women's  Anti-Suffrage  Association  which  became  a  very 
active  organization  working  in  opposition  to  granting  the 
vote  to  women  in  parliamentary  elections.  They  distributed 
great  quantities  of  literature,  held  demonstrations,  and  se- 
cured petitions  against  women's  suffrage.  The  suffrage 
societies  likewise  carried  on  a  vigorous  campaign  of  meet- 
ings, processions,  and  demonstrations  attempting  to  con- 
vince the  Government  of  the  demand  for  immediate  action. 
These  extended  throughout  the  country;  it  was  estimated 
that  the  Women's  'Social  and  Political  Union  alone  was  re- 
sponsible for  10,000  meetings  during  1908.*  They  reached 
their  climax  in  the  mammoth  demonstration  in  Hyde  Park 
on  June  21.  The  Times  estimated  that  30,000  people  took 
part  in  the  parade  and  that  it  was  witnessed  by  250,000 
people.3  It  declared  that  no  such  demonstration  had  been 

1  The  Times,  May  22,  1908,  p.  10. 

1  Metcalf  e,  op.  tit.,  p.  71. 

'  The  Times,  June  22,  1908,  pp.  9  and  II. 


52  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [258 

witnessed  in  London  since  the  demonstration  of  the  agricul- 
tural laborers  in  1884.  The  editor  admitted  that  after  such 
a  remarkable  demonstration,  judged  both  by  organization 
and  mere  magnitude,  it  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  a  great 
many  women  were  desirous  of  the  franchise.  It  was  time, 
he  thought,  for  those  women  who  disbelieved  in  the  suit- 
ability of  their  sex  for  the  franchise  and  for  the  men  of 
the  same  opinion  to  organize  and  demonstrate  their  strength 
correspondingly. 

A  more  serious  form  of  disturbance  took  place  on  the 
reopening  of  Parliament  at  the  autumn  session,  October  12, 
1908.  Because  the  Government  refused  to  grant  facilities, 
a  hand  bill  was  circulated  calling  upon  the  public  to  assist 
the  suffragettes  in  "rushing"  the  House  of  Commons. 
This  appealed  to  all  lawless  elements  in  the  community  and 
led  to  a  rather  serious  breach  of  the  peace.  It  was  brought 
out  in  the  trial  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement  that  more 
than  6,000  special  policemen  had  been  placed  on  duty 
because  of  this  raid.  About  the  same  time  those  who  were 
sent  to  Holloway  prison  refused  to  obey  the  prison  rules 
and  mutinied  against  discipline.  This  was  only  a  forerun- 
ner of  the  trouble  which  was  to  follow.  The  policy  which 
the  Government  adopted  of  treating  the  suffragettes  as 
criminals  rather  than  as  political  prisoners  kept  the  question 
constantly  before  the  House  and  caused  a  great  deal  of 
agitation  and  criticism.  With  the  development  of  events  in 
1908  it  became  apparent  that  if  the  Government  did  not 
grant  concessions,  and  there  were  no  indications  that  it 
would,  a  much  more  serious  form  of  militancy  would  even- 
tually be  restored  to.  It  would  be  only  the  logic  of  events. 

Early  in  1909  there  was  a  renewed  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  militants  to  send  deputations  to  Mr.  Asquith  and  also 
to  reach  the  House  of  Commons.  As  on  former  occasions 
they  were  foiled  by  the  police  and  arrests  followed.  When 


259]    EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE        53 

their  prominent  members  were  released  from  prison,  they 
were  welcomed  with  great  demonstrations,  which  only 
tended  to  advertise  their  movement. 

Howard's  Adult  Franchise  Bill  of  1909 

In  the  balloting  for  private  members'  bills,  Mr.  Geoffrey 
Howard  secured  a  good  place  and  agreed  to  introduce  a 
franchise  measure.  He  decided  in  consultation  with  the 
Women's  Suffrage  Committee  of  Liberal  Members  to  intro- 
duce a  bill  along  the  lines  mapped  out  by  Mr.  Asquith.  This 
would  offer  an  opportunity  to  get  an  interpretation  of  the 
position  of  the  Government  in  relation  to  a  democratic  meas- 
ure. The  bill  as  introduced  by  Mr.  Howard  was  an  adult 
franchise  bill  and  provided  that  every  man  and  woman  of 
full  age,  whether  married  or  single,  should  be  qualified  to 
vote  at  parliamentary  or  local  elections,  provided  they  had  re- 
sided for  three  months  within  the  constituency.1  It  was 
estimated  that  the  bill  would  enfranchise  about  3,000,000 
men  and  between  10,000,000  and  11,000,000  women.2  Mr. 
Howard  justified  the  broad  scope  of  the  bill  on  the  ground 
that  if  it  were  limited  it  would  be  opposed  by  some  group 
which  favored  another  particular  reform  and  that  piecemeal 
measures  were  thus  sure  to  arouse  antagonism;  it  was, 
therefore,  better  to  face  the  situation  as  a  whole.3  He  as- 
sured the  House  that  he  was  under  no  illusion  as  to  the 
chances  for  success  of  this  bill  or  any  other  private  members' 
bill  upon  electoral  reform  and  insisted  that  the  reform  must 
be  ultimately  fostered  by  one  of  the  great  political  parties. 

The  women's  suffrage  societies  of  the  country  without  a 
single  exception  were  opposed  to  this  bill  because  of  its 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1909,  vol.  ii,  Bill  21. 

2  In  speech  made  by  'Sir   C.   B.  McLaren,  Parliamentary  Debates, 
5th  series,  vol.  ii :  1369. 

3  Ibid.,  1360-5. 


54  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [260 

broad  scope.  They  believed  that  this  would  put  insuperable 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  women's  suffrage  and  postpone  in- 
definitely the  removal  of  the  sex  disqualification.  While 
they  used  different  methods  they  all  worked  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  success  could  be  attained  only  by  the  removal  of 
the  sex  disqualification,  entirely  disconnected  from  the  ques- 
tion of  adult  suffrage.  They  did  not  want  their  cause  con- 
fused and  hindered  by  another  issue.  Neither  did  they 
want  to  wait  until  the  country  was  ripe  for  adult  suffrage  to 
secure  their  demands.1  The  bill  was  supported  by  the 
Women's  Liberal  Federation2  and  the  Women's  Coopera- 
tive Guild  although  neither  one  of  these  was  strictly  a  suf- 
frage organization.  The  bill  was  opposed  on  the  familiar 
grounds  that  it  would  change  the  basis  of  representation, 
that  the  question  had  not  been  before  the  electorate,  and 
that  there  was  no  demand  for  the  reform.8  In  closing  the 
debate  Mr.  Asquith  reiterated  his  pledge  to  introduce  a 
•Reform  Bill,  along  democratic  lines,  but  insisted  that  such 
a  bill  must  be  backed  by  the  government  of  the  day;  it 
should  not  be  presented  as  a  private  members'  bill.4  The 
bill  was  ordered  to  a  second  reading  by  a  majority  of  35, 
the  vote  being  157  ayes  to  122  noes.  It  was  referred  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole  and  never  came  up  again.  This 
debate  was  not  of  so  high  an  order  as  was  the  one  of  the 
previous  year,  neither  did  it  attract  the  popular  attention 
nor  cause  the  press  comment.  It  was  apparent  that  because 
of  the  wide  scope  of  the  bill  the  discussion  could  have  little 
practical  effect. 

1  Letter  by  Mrs.  Fawcett,  The  Times,  March  15,  1909,  p.  4,  speaking 
for  the  National  Union  of  Women's  'Suffrage  Societies,  and  speech  made 
by  Miss  Pankhurst,  The  Times,  March  17,  p.  8. 

1  Report  of  Resolution  passed  by  Federation,  The  Times,  March  18, 
1909,  p.  8. 

•  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  ii:  1372;  1399-1407. 

'Ibid.,  1428-30. 


26l  ]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         55 

The  attempt  to  present  petitions  to  the  prime  Minister 
finally  led  to  a  legal  struggle  over  the  right  of  petition. 
Under  this  right  the  militants  claimed  that  Mr.  Asquith 
could  not  refuse  to  receive  them  and  that  they  could  not  be 
lawfully  imprisoned  for  attempting  to  exercise  their  legal 
rights.  The  question  was  appealed  to  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice  who  sustained  the  imprisonment  sentences  of  the 
lower  court  on  the  principle  that  while  the  women  had  a 
right  to  present  a  petition  to  the  Prime  Minister,  they  could 
not  compel  the  Prime  Minister  to  receive  a  deputation, 
which  was  the  chief  object  of  their  visit.1 

The  suffrage  workers  were  defeated  in  every  new  attempt 
to  advance  their  cause.  The  machinery  of  the  House  of 
Commons  was  used  to  block  their  bills.  They  were  unable 
to  secure  the  support  of  either  dominant  political  party. 
They  were  in  effect  deprived  of  the  right  of  petition.  Being 
thus  foiled  in  their  efforts,  militancy  began  to  take  on  a 
more  serious  aspect.  Things  had  reached  a  point  where  the 
militants  must  either  yield  and  acknowledge  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  the  Government  or  adopt  more  drastic  methods 
in  an  attempt  to  force  the  Government  to  alter  its  policy. 
The  first  sign  of  a  more  vigorous  policy  was  the  throwing 
of  stones  during  the  raids  upon  Parliament.  The  damage 
done  was  chiefly  to  windows  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
demonstration.  The  larger  number  of  prisoners  also  began 
to  cause  trouble.  While  previously  there  had  been  minor 
infractions  of  discipline  in  the  prisons  there  was  now  inau- 
gurated the  hunger  strike.  The  first  to  attempt  this  was 
Miss  Wallace  Dunlap  who  was  released  from  Holloway  on 
July  9,  in  a  state  of  complete  exhaustion  after  ninety-two 
hours  of  incarceration.  As  this  policy  was  consistently 
carried  out  by  the  prisoners,  the  Government,  not  to  be 
foiled,  adopted  the  policy  of  feeding  them  forcibly.  This 

1  The  Times,  December  2,  1909,  p.  3. 


56  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [262 

treatment  was  administered  first1  to  Mrs.  Mary  Leigh  in 
the  Birmingham  Prison  and  reported  in  the  press  on  Sep- 
tember 24,  1909.  The  news  of  this  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment brought  forth  a  storm  of  criticism  both  in  and  out  of 
Parliament  from  friend  and  opponent  of  women's  suffrage. 
It  served  as  nothing  else  had  to  cause  increased  discussion  of 
the  question  of  women's  suffrage  on  the  part  of  the  public. 

General  Election  of  January,  1910 

The  great  controversy  over  the  budget  in  1909  prevented 
the  suffrage  workers  from  making  the  suffrage  question  a 
dominant  issue  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  day,  and  they 
completely  failed  to  make  it  an  issue  in  the  election  of 
January,  1910,  as  they  had  hoped  to  do.  The  program  of 
social  legislation  which  the  Government  had  been  carrying 
out  resulted  in  a  very  heavy  drain  upon  the  treasury.  The 
increased  naval  program,  occasioned  by  the  rivalry  with 
Germany,  meant  great  additional  burdens  upon  the  Govern- 
ment. As  a  result  of  these  two  lines  of  activities  the 
Government  in  1909  faced  a  deficit  of  about  £16,500,000. 
While  this  program  had  been  proposed  by  the  Liberals  it 
was  one  which  the  Opposition  dared  not  oppose.  A  sharp 
line  of  cleavage  between  the  two  parties  developed  concern- 
ing the  method  by  which  this  deficit  should  be  met.  Mr. 
Lloyd  George  in  his  budget  plan  proposed  that  the  greater 
part  should  be  raised  by  unearned  increment  taxes  on  land, 
increase  in  liquor  license  duties,  graduated  income  tax,  and 
increased  inheritance  taxes.  Most  of  this  burden  would  fall 
upon  the  propertied  classes,  especially  upon  the  landholders. 
While  the  new  land  taxes  themselves  were  not  so  burden- 
some, it  was  the  introduction  of  the  principle  to  which  the 
Opposition  objected.  The  Unionists  proposed  that  the  de- 
ficit be  met  by  a  tariff  reform,  the  revenue  to  be  raised 
largely  from  duties  laid  upon  imported  foodstuffs. 

1  Pankhurst,  The  Suffragette,  p.  431. 


263]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         57 

The  Finance  Bill  based  upon  Mr.  Lloyd  George's  pro- 
posals was  introduced  on  May  26,  1909.  This  became  the 
important  political  question  before  the  country.  Party 
spirit  ran  high.  The  bill  passed  the  House  of  Commons  on 
November  4,  and  was  rejected  by  the  Lords  on  November 
30.  On  the  principle  that  such  an  important  legislative  policy 
should  not  be  inaugurated  without  first  getting  the  mandate 
of  the  electorate,  it  was  decided  to  dissolve  Parliament  and 
make  an  appeal  to  the  country.  The  chief  issues  in  the 
election  were,  the  right  of  the  House  of  Lords  to  interfere 
with  money  bills,  the  approval  or  rejection  of  the  budget, 
the  abolition  of  the  veto  power  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
the  introduction  of  a  scheme  for  Home  Rule. 

With  these  deeply  rooted  partisan  questions  before  the 
country  the  suffrage  supporters  were  unable  to  make  their 
demands  in  any  way  an  election  issue.  They  thus  were 
manoeuvred  into  a  position  of  great  disadvantage.  Dur- 
ing the  election,  however,  they  were  not  idle ;  they  attempted 
to  secure  pledges  of  support  from  all  candidates  possible. 
Mr.  Asquith  in  answer  to  a  question  by  the  Women's  Liberal 
Federation  gave  his  pledge  that  the  promise  for  opportunity 
to  amend  the  Government  Reform  Bill  would  survive  the 
expiring  Parliament,  that  it  would  hold  good  in  its  succes- 
sor, and  that  the  cause  of  women's  suffrage,  so  far  as  the 
Government  was  concerned,  would  be  no  worse  off  in  the 
new  than  in  the  old  Parliament.1 

In  all  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  candidates  in  their 
election  addresses  advocated  some  form  of  women's  suf- 
frage. In  no  less  than  forty  constituencies  the  Women's 
Social  and  Political  Union  conducted  campaigns  against  the 
Government  candidates  on  the  suffrage  issue.2  In  eighteen 
of  these  the  candidates  failed  to  be  reflected,  and  practically 

1  The  Times,  December  n,  1909,  p.  8. 
1  Pankhurst,  The  Suffragette,  p.  488. 


5g  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [264 

every  one  of  the  candidates  had  his  majority  reduced. 
This,  however,  was  typical  of  the  election  as  a  whole.  The 
Liberals  were  successful,  but  they  were  returned  with  a 
greatly  decreased  majority.  The  Liberals  secured  274 
seats,  the  Unionists  273,  the  Nationalists  82,  and  the 
Laborites  41.  The  position  of  the  Government  thus  de- 
pended upon  the  support  of  the  Nationalists  and  the  Labor- 
ites, the  majority  of  the  Government  even  with  this  sup- 
port being  reduced  to  124. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  women's  suffrage  supporters 
this  was  a  real  victory.  Previous  to  the  election  they  had 
been  fighting  against  a  party  with  such  a  big  parliamentary 
majority  that  its  position  was  impregnable.  Now  they  were 
in  a  much  stronger  strategic  position  because  the  Govern- 
ment had  to  depend  upon  the  support  of  the  Nationalists  and 
the  Laborites.  It  was  among  these  members  that  the  suf- 
frage advocates  had  their  most  loyal  supporters.  Thus  in 
spite  of  the  disadvantages  of  the  campaign  and  election  they 
found  themselves  in  a  much  better  parliamentary  position 
than  ever  before. 

The  policy  of  the  militants  had  placed  the  Government  in 
a  rather  embarrassing  position.  If  it  yielded  to  their  de- 
mands it  would  do  so  under  pressure  and  as  a  result  of 
force.  In  order  to  remove  this  embarrassment  and  to  give 
the  new  Government  opportunity  to  carry  out  its  pledge  the 
Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  announced  on 
February  14,  1910,  the  day  before  the  opening  of  Parlia- 
ment, that  they  would  suspend  all  militant  tactics  toward 
the  Government.  But  in  doing  this  they  emphasized  the 
point  that  this  was  only  a  suspension  and  not  an  abandon- 
ment of  hostilities.1 

The  King's  speech  made  no  mention  of  the  question  of 

1  The  Times,  February  15,  1910,  p.  8. 


265]     EARLY  MOVEMENT  FOR  WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE         59 

women's  suffrage,  neither  was  a  supporter  of  the  cause 
successful  in  the  ballot  for  a  private  members'  bill.  This 
•made  some  new  policy  necessary.  The  development  of 
parliamentary  events  also  made  it  rather  more  difficult  for 
the  suffrage  supporters  to  get  a  hearing.  The  Finance  Bill 
was  reintroduced  and  passed  without  great  opposition.  But 
the  whole  question  of  the  status  of  the  House  of  Lords  had 
been  raised  by  the  controversy  and  the  Government  intro- 
duced a  series  of  resolutions  which  proposed  definitely  to 
limit  the  power  of  the  House  of  Lords.  This  completely 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  Commons  and  the  controversy 
became  the  center  of  political  interest  throughout  the 
country.  For  a  while,  therefore,  the  suffrage  forces  were 
compelled  to  work  more  quietly,  but  their  work  was  effec- 
tive. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  apparent  that  the  first  decade  of 
the  twentieth  century  witnessed  tremendous  strides  in  the 
cause  of  women's  suffrage.  At  the  opening  of  the  period  it 
was  of  little  more  than  academic  interest ;  at  the  end  of  the 
decade  it  was  one  of  .the  leading  political  questions  of  the 
day.  The  militant  movement,  whether  it  created  friends 
or  enemies,  had  at  least  forced  the  question  on  the  attention 
of  the  public.  Scarcely  a  paper  appeared  which  did  not 
deal  with  some  phase  of  the  question.  The  novel  methods 
of  propaganda  which  were  introduced  and  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  workers  constantly  augmented  the  number  of  suf- 
frage supporters.  Women's  suffrage  had  become  a  ques- 
tion of  which  the  politicians  were  compelled  to  take  cogniz- 
ance. 


CHAPTER  IV 
WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  BECOMES  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  question  of  women's  suffrage- 
was  different  from  most  political  questions  in  that  it  cut 
athwart  party  lines.  Neither  of  the  dominant  parties  was 
willing  to  make  it  a  party  issue.  While  it  had  become  an 
important  public  question  it  suffered  the  lack  of  party  sup- 
port. In  order  to  meet  this  situation  the  supporters  of  the 
cause  finally  agreed  that  the  best  method  of  procedure  would 
be  to  appoint  a  committee,  representing  all  parties,  which 
would  assume  responsibility  for  the  direction  of  the  move- 
ment in  Parliament.  A  Conciliation  Committee  was  ac- 
cordingly  appointed  consisting  of  fifty-four  members, 
twenty-five  of  whom  were  Liberals,  seventeen  Unionists, 
six  Irish  Nationalists,  and  six  members  of  the  Labor  party.1 
The  Earl  of  Lytton  was  made  chairman  of  the  Committee 
and  Mr.  H.  N.  Brailsford  acted  as  secretary.  The  Com- 
mitte-e  attempted  at  once  to  frame  a  bill  which  would  be 
supported  by  all  parties  and  all  classes  of  suffrage  societies. 
They  found  that  a  most  difficult  task.2  The  Conservative 
members  naturally  wanted  only  a  moderate  bill  brought  for- 
ward; many  of  the  Labor  party  wanted  to  go  to  the  full 
length  of  adult  suffrage;  the  Liberals  insisted  that  the  bill 
should  be  so  constructed  as  not  to  increase  the  number  of 
plural  voters  or  to  give  undue  influence  to  the  propertied 

1  The  Common  Cause,  June  16,  1910,  p.  148. 

2  Brailsford,  The  Conciliation  Bill,  passim. 

60  [266 


267]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  6l 

classes.  The  Committee  was  so  tactful,  however,  that  it 
secured  the  support  of  all  parties  and  all  suffrage  societies 
to  the  bill,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  at  first  many  of  the 
societies  demurred  from  supporting  a  bill  of  such  limited 
scope. 

In  the  meantime  the  suffrage  societies  held  a  great  many 
demonstrations.  The  members  of  the  Conciliation  Com- 
mittee, and  party  leaders  brought  pressure  upon  the  Govern- 
ment to  grant  facilities  for  the  bill.1  Finally  on  June  23,  Mr. 
Asquith  announced  that  the  Government  was  prepared  before 
the  close  of  the  session  to  give  time  for  a  full  debate  and  a 
division  on  the  second  reading  of  the  bill,  but  he  said  the 
Government  itself  would  not  sponsor  any  contentious 
measure  and  could  not  give  further  facilities  for  the  bill.2 
While  this  insured  ample  discussion,  the  promoters  were  not 
satisfied  with  such  a  program  since  it  meant  defeat  of  the 
measure  unless  they  were  granted  further  facilities.  The 
concession  of  the  Government  was,  nevertheless,  an  evidence 
of  a  change  in  attitude  towards  the  movement  since  under 
pressure  it  was  compelled  for  the  first  time  to  grant  facilities 
for  discussion. 

Conciliation  Bill  of  1910 

The  Conciliation  Bill  which  was  drafted  by  this  unofficial 
committee  representing  all  sections  in  the  House  was  intro- 
duced3 by  Mr.  Shackleton  on  June  14,  and  came  up  for 
second  reading  on  July  n.  The  bill  as  introduced  was 
modeled  after  the  municipal  franchise  and  extended  the 

1  It  is  almost  impossible  for  an  opposed  private  members'  bill  to  become 
law  unless  the  Government  gives  the  bill  some  of  its  own  time  or  as- 
sumes control  of  the  bill  after  it  passes  the  second  reading.  If  some 
assistance  is  not  granted  the  bill  is  almost  certainly  doomed  because  there 
are  so  many  means  of  obstruction  possible.  Lowell,  op.  cit.,  pp.  314-15. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xviii :  488. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  xvii :  1202-5. 


62  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [268 

parliamentary  franchise  to  every  woman  who  possessed  a 
household  qualification  and  women  occupiers  of  business 
premises  of  £10  or  more  yearly  value.  It  also  provided  that 
a  woman  could  not  be  disqualified  for  registration  by 
reason  of  marriage  if  the  husband  and  wife  did  not  qualify 
in  respect  of  the  same  property.1  Under  this  bill  the  house- 
holders would  constitute  about  90  per  cent  of  those  included 
within  its  provisions.  The  householder  could  vote  if  he  or 
she  inhabited  a  house,  even  a  single  room,  however  small, 
or  low  the  value,  provided  it  was  under  his  or  her  full  con- 
trol. The  bill  also  included  a  large  number  who  occupied 
premises  valued  at  £10  per  inhabitant.  This  would  include 
a  large  number  of  small  shopkeepers,  typists,  and  other 
women  who  had  offices  of  their  own,  and  it  would  also 
enable  women  living  together  to  rank  as  joint  occupiers  pro- 
vided the  house  was  worth  £10  for  each  occupier.  As 
under  the  municipal  franchise,  there  was  no  qualification  for 
owners,  lodgers,  or  university  graduates.  Mr.  Shackleton 
estimated  that  the  bill  would  enfranchise  about  1,000,000 
women.2 

The  limited  scope  of  the  bill  gave  rise  to  a  great  deal  of 
discussion  as  to  the  finality  of  the  measure.  Mr.  Shackle- 
ton  was  a  supporter  of  adult  suffrage  yet  he  introduced  this 
bill  in  order  to  get  the  principle  of  women's  suffrage  estab- 
lished in  the  hope  that  if  it  were  once  adopted  it  would  later 
be  extended  to  other  classes.  Hon.  Alfred  Lyttelton,  on 
the  other  hand,  entirely  repudiated  this  "thin  edge  of  the 
wedge"  doctrine.8  While  he  accepted  the  principle  of 
women's  suffrage  in  limited  form,  he  did  not  accept  the 
principle  of  adult  suffrage.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  he 
said,  "  I  am  unalterably  against  and  I  can  imagine  no  cir- 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1910,  vol.  iv,  Bill  180. 
1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xix :  42. 
*Ibid.,  91-6. 


269]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  63 

cumstances  in  which  I  would  be  for  adult  suffrage.  If  the 
honorable  member  anticipates  or  if  he  attempts  going  even 
one  step  further  in  that  direction  he  must  count  on  my 
opposition."  Mr.  Walter  McLaren  speaking  for  the  various 
women's  suffrage  organizations  supporting  the  bill  said  that 
while  there  was  no  finality  in  politics  yet  the  women  were 
prepared  to  accept  this  bill  as  a  reasonable  settlement  of  the 
claims  they  were  making.1  If  this  bill  had  become  law  it 
would,  no  doubt,  for  a  time  have  satisfied  the  supporters  of 
women's  suffrage  but  it  never  would  have  been  considered 
a  final  settlement  of  the  question. 

The  limited  character  of  the  bill  alienated  some  support 
from  the  adult  suffragists  and  was  the  chief  point  of  attack 
of  those  who  opposed  the  measure.  The  Speaker  ruled 
early  in  the  debate  that  the  title  of  the  bill  would  not  permit 
amendments  to  be  made  so  as  to  extend  its  scope  in  order 
to  grant  the  franchise  to  women  whose  husbands  possessed 
the  household  qualifications,  regardless  of  value.  Mr. 
Asquith  asserted  that  it  was  a  travesty  on  democratic  institu- 
tions to  present  a  measure  such  as  this  that  did  not  satisfy 
the  most  rudimentary  requirements  of  democratic  ideas.2 
Mr.  Lloyd  George,  who  was  supposed  to  be  a  supporter  of 
women's  suffrage,  came  out  openly  against  the  bill  because 
of  its  undemocratic  character.  Mr.  Snowden  defended  it 
as  a  democratic  measure  by  saying  that  four-fifths  of  the 
women  who  would  be  enfranchised  by  the  bill  were  women 
who  earn  their  own  living.  He  justified  the  policy  of  the 
Conciliation  'Committee  in  presenting  this  bill  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  the  only  means  by  which  they  could  hope  to  unite 
all  the  differences  of  opinion  and  the  various  factions  which 
were  in  favor  of  extending  the  franchise  to  women.8 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xix:2ii-2O. 
1  Ibid.,  244-54. 
llbid.,  316-24. 


64  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [270 

A  total  of  thirty-nine  speeches  were  delivered  during  the 
two  days'  debate,  both  supporters  and  opponents  being  drawn 
from  all  parties  except  that  no  member  of  the  Labor  party 
spoke  against  the  bill.  There  was  scarcely  an  argument 
which  had  ever  been  presented  on  the  subject  that  was  not 
mentioned  sometime  during  the  debate.  In  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  Mr.  Asquith,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  and  Mr. 
Churchill,  the  bill  passed  on  second  reading  by  a  vote  of 
299  to  190,  a  majority  of  109.*  An  analysis  of  the  vote 
shows  that  the  Liberals  gave  a  majority  of  101  in  favor  of 
the  bill  with  four  to  the  good  on  the  pairing,  while  the 
Conservatives  rolled  up  in  opposition  a  majority  of  twenty- 
six  against  the  proposition  with  five  against  it  on  pairing. 
Not  even  the  Laborites  were  unanimous  on  the  subject,  two 
votes  being  cast  against  the  bill.  The  Nationalists  were 
almost  equally  divided,  giving  a  slight  majority  of  four  to 
the  negative.  It  appears  that  there  were  not  enough  negative 
votes  to  pair  all  of  the  absent  affirmative  votes.  The 
Ministers  were  almost  equally  divided  upon  the  question, 
fifteen  voting  for  and  sixteen  against  the  bill.  The  Opposi- 
tion front  bench  voted  six  for  and  eleven  against  women's 
suffrage. 

1  The  parties  voted  as  follows  on  the  bill : 

For  Against          Absent 

Liberals 162  ~\  6i~\          Unpaired 

[-174  [•  69           32 

Paired  12  )  8  ) 

Unionists 88  ^  1 14  ~\ 

[99  [•  131          41 

Paired  n  )  17  ) 

Labor 32 ") 

f-  34  2  4 

Paired  2) 

Nationalists 19  15  47 

326  217  124* 

*  This  includes   the  Tellers.     Liberal  Magazine,   August,   1910,   pp. 
384-85. 


271]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  65 

The  fact  that  the  large  majority  of  179  votes  on  the 
Stanger  Bill  in  1908  was  reduced  to  a  majority  of  109  votes 
on  this  bill  can  not  be  taken  as  evidence  of  a  falling  off  in 
the  women's  suffage  support.  The  Liberals  had  suffered  a 
greatly  reduced  majority  in  this  Parliament  as  compared 
with  that  of  1908.  The  Conciliation  Bill  received  a  larger 
majority  than  the  Government  had  been  able  to  command 
for  any  of  its  bills.  During  the  election  campaign  the 
Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  had  worked  against 
the  Liberals  so  that  if  the  Union  had  any  influence  it  would 
have  increased  the  Conservative  members  who  in  the  main 
were  less  favorable  to  women's  suffrage  than  the  Liberals. 

There  had  been  a  determined  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
Conciliation  Committee  and  the  supporters  of  the  bill  to 
have  it  sent  to  a  Grand  Committee  rather  than  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House.  They  realized  that  reference  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  would  be  equivalent  to  defeat. 
Both  during  the  debate  and  in  the  discussion  outside  of 
Parliament  it  had  been  urged  that  a  vote  to  send  the  bill  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  would  be  equivalent  to  a  vote 
against  it.  Immediately  after  the  vote  on  the  second  read- 
ing had  been  taken,  Mr.  Lehmann  moved  that  the  bill 
be  sent  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  the  motion  car- 
ried by  a  vote  of  320  to  175,  a  majority  of  145.  A  majority 
of  both  Liberals  and  Unionists  favored  this  procedure.1 
There  were  fifty-five  Unionists,  fifty-nine  Liberals  and  four 
Laborites  who  voted  for  the  bill  on  the  second  reading  and 

1  For  Against 

Unionists 176  29 

Liberals 124  101 

Labor  5  26 

Nationalist 15  19 

320  175 

The  Times,  July  14,  1910,  p.  9. 


66  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [272 

subsequently  voted  to  bury  it  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

While  the  supporters  of  the  measure  attempted  to  press 
the  point  that  a  vote  to  send  the  bill  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  was  a  vote  against  the  bill  yet  there  was  a  point  of 
procedure  involved  which  influenced  a  great  many  votes, 
especially  among  the  Conservatives.  They  objected  on 
constitutional  grounds  to  sending  a  franchise  measure  to  a 
Grand  Committee,  believing  that  such  an  important  bill 
should  always  be  sent  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
It  was  perfectly  evident,  however,  that  there  were  a  great 
many  who  voted  for  the  bill  and  then  took  this  opportunity 
to  shelve  it  safely  for  the  remainder  of  the  session.  But 
this  was  not  accomplished  without  a  great  deal  of  opposi- 
tion, for  this  debate  had  been  taken  much  more  seriously 
than  any  of  the  previous  suffrage  debates. 

All  the  forces  in  favor  of  women's  suffrage  now  began 
to  wage  a  vigorous  campaign  for  further  facilities  for  the 
bill.  Their  demands  occupied  the  center  of  interest  for  all 
the  suffrage  workers  until  the  dissolution  of  Parliament  on 
November  28,  1910.  The  Conciliation  Committee  led  in 
this  propaganda.  At  every  opportunity  the  supporters  of 
the  bill  injected  the  question  into  the  debates  on  the  floor 
of  the  House  of  Commons  and  demanded  facilities  for 
their  measure.  On  July  28,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  in  answer 
to  a  question  by  Mr.  Snowden,  replied  for  the  Government 
that  further  facilities  could  not  be  granted  during  the 
session.  He  justified  this  decision  by  saying  that  the 
Government  had  promised  to  give  an  opportunity  for  ef- 
fectively dealing  with  the  whole  question,  but  since  this 
bill  was  so  framed  as  not  to  admit  of  amendment,  the  Gov- 
ernment would  not  grant  further  facilities  for  it.1 

On  the  debate  of  the  motion  for  adjournment,  which  is 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xix:  2338-9. 


273]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  67 

always  an  opportunity  for  attacking  the  Government,  the 
supporters  of  the  bill  again  arraigned  the  policy  of  the 
Government  in  the  most  vigorous  manner.1  In  reply  to 
this  attack  Mr.  Asquith  maintained  that  the  Government 
had  adhered  strictly  to  its  pledge.  He  said  that  when  he 
promised  two  days  for  the  discussion  of  the  second  reading 
it  was  with  the  expressed  understanding  that  no  further 
facilities  would  be  given  during  the  session  so  that  the  sup- 
porters of  the  measure  accepted  the  pledge  of  the  Govern- 
ment definitely  knowing  the  conditions  and  limitations.  He 
also  justified  the  position  of  the  Government  by  the  fact 
that  the  members  of  the  House  had  deliberately  voted  to 
send  the  bill  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  rather  than  a 
Grand  Committee  with  the  definite  knowledge  that  this  pro- 
cedure would  defeat  it. 

In  the  meantime  the  suffrage  organizations  were  becoming 
increasingly  active  all  over  the  country,  trying  to  compel 
the  Government  to  grant  facilities.  By  November  resolu- 
tions and  petitions  urging  the  Government  to  grant  facilities 
had  been  passed  by  thirty-eight  city  and  town  councils,  in- 
cluding those  of  Manchester,  Cork,  Southport,  Glasgow, 
Dundee,  Liverpool,  and  Nottingham.  Since  July  12,  when 
the  bill  passed  the  second  reading,  no  less  than  4,220  suf- 
frage meetings  had  been  held.  Some  of  these  were  very 
large  demonstrations,  especially  those  in  Hyde  Park,  Albert 
Hall,  Edinburgh,  Manchester,  Bristol,  Leicester,  and  Not- 
tingham. At  a  meeting  of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political 
Union  on  November  10,  Mrs.  Pankhurst  announced  that  if 
the  Government  did  not  grant  facilities,  the  truce  would  be 
annulled  and  war  would  again  be  declared  on  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Parliament  reassembled  on  November  15,  and  three  days 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  xix:  2587-92. 


68  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [274 

later  Mr.  Asquith  announced  that  the  Conference  between 
the  two  Houses  had  failed  on  an  agreement  over  the  dis- 
position of  the  House  of  Lords  and  that  Parliament  would 
be  dissolved  on  November  28,  and  a  general  election  would 
follow.  In  making  this  announcement  he  outlined  the 
program  for  the  remainder  of  the  session  but  made  no 
mention  of  facilities  for  the  Conciliation  Bill.  The  friends 
of  the  measure  were  so  indignant  over  this  procedure  that 
Viscount  Castlereagh  moved  an  amendment  to  the  Prime 
Minister's  motion,  demanding  that  further  facilities  be  given 
to  the  Conciliation  Bill.  In  doing  this  he  intended  to 
make  a  protest  against  the  manner  in  which  the  Govern- 
ment had  dealt  with  the  women's  suffrage  question.  Mr. 
Asquith  attempted  to  prevent  this  amendment  from  com- 
ing to  a  division  because  it  virtually  amounted  to  a  vote! 
of  censure  on  the  Government.  The  amendment  failed 
by  a  vote  of  52  to  199,  which  was  a  distinct  victory  for  the 
Government.  Here  again  the  power  of  the  Cabinet  and 
the  Government  whips  made  themselves  felt  and  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Conciliation  Bill  proved  more  loyal  to  the 
Government  than  to  the  cause  of  women's  suffrage. 

Finally  on  November  22,  in  answer  to  a  question  by  Mr. 
Hardie  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  the  Government  'in! 
relation  to  women's  suffrage,  Mr.  Asquith  said,  "  The  Gov- 
ernment will,  if  they  are  still  in  power,  give  facilities  in  the 
next  Parliament  for  effectively  proceeding  with  a  bill  which 
is  so  framed  as  to  admit  of  free  amendment."1  But  he 
refused  a  pledge  to  make  it  a  Government  Bill  in  case  it 
passed  a  second  reading.  A  big  meeting  was  in  session  in 
Caxton  Hall  awaiting  Mr.  Asquith's  answer.  His  pro- 
mise did  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  women.  As  soon 
as  it  was  received  a  strong  deputation  started  to  carry  a 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xx :  273. 


275]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  69 

resolution  to  the  Prime  Minister.  A  struggle  with  the 
police  followed  in  which  the  women  displayed  greater  de- 
termination than  ever  before.  Windows  were  broken  and 
Mr.  Asquith  himself  was  attacked  but  escaped  in  a  motor 
car.  Some  156  arrests  were  made  as  a  rtesult  of  the 
demonstration.  The  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union 
issued  the  statement,  "  As  the  Prime  Minister  will  not  give 
us  the  assurance  that  women  shall  be  enfranchised  next  year 
we  revert  to  a  state  of  war."1  The  Women's  Freedom 
League  took  similar  action.  Thus  after  ten  months  of 
truce  militant  tactics  were  again  resorted  to  in  an  attempt 
to  compel  the  Government  to  grant  concessions. 

General  Election  of  December,  19 10 

In  the  general  election  which  followed  in  December  the 
Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  again  adopted  the 
policy  of  implacable  opposition  to  the  Government  can- 
didates. They  carried  on  anti-Government  campaigns  in 
fifty  constituences,  in  ten  of  which  the  Liberal  candidates 
failed  to  secure  reelection.  The  other  women's  suffrage 
societies  including  the  Women's  Freedom  League  worked 
in  behalf  of  the  candidates  who  pledged  their  support  to  the 
cause  of  women's  suffrage.  The  election  yielded  results 
almost  identical  with  those  of  the  previous  January,  al- 
though there  were  a  number  of  changes  in  seats.  The 
Liberals  actually  lost  two  seats  but  the  Nationalists  and 
Labor  parties  gained  four  seats,  which  made  a  net  gain  of 
two  seats  to  the  Liberal  Government,  so  that  they  were  as 
dependent  as  ever  upon  the  support  of  these  parties.  The 
supporters  of  women's  suffrage  claimed  a  much  larger 
number  of  friends  for  their  cause  than  in  any  previous 
Parliament.  Mr.  Bradford's  classification  of  the  members 

1  The  Times,  November  23,  1910,  p.  8. 


70  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [276 

showed  that  there  were  246  supporters  of  women's  suffrage 
in  all  parties,  120  of  the  less  reliable  variety,  42  adult  suf- 
fragists who  were  reluctant  to  vote  for  a  hadfway  measure, 
and  65  who  were  either  neutral  or  undecided  while  there 
were  193  avowed  opponents  of  women's  suffrage.1 

Kemp  Conciliation  Bill  of  1911 

The  Conciliation  Committee  decided  that  members  of  the 
committee  and  sympathizers  should  ballot  for  the  oppor- 
tunity of  moving  a  resolution  and  of  introducing  a  bill  in 
the  new  Parliament.  Following  out  this  plan  Sir  George 
Kemp  introduced  a  Women's  Enfranchisement  Bill  which 
came  up  for  a  second  reading  on  May  5.*  The  bill  provided 
that  every  woman  who  was  a  householder  should  be  granted 
the  parliamentary  franchise  in  the  division  hi  which  she 
resided.3  It  provided  that  a  woman  should  not  be  dis- 
qualified because  of  her  marriage  but  specified  that  husband 
and  wife  could  not  vote  in  the  same  parliamentary  division. 
A  woman  would,  therefore,  have  to  possess  a  household 
qualification  in  another  division  from  that  in  which  her 
husband  resided  in  order  to  be  able  to  vote.  While  it 
abolished  the  £10  qualification  which  was  included  in  the  bill 
of  1910,  yet  it  virtually  limited  the  right  to  vote  to  the; 
wealthy  women  who  could  qualify  in  another  division. 
On  the  other  hand  it  made  it  much  easier  for  widows  and 
spinsters  to  qualify  because  there  was  no  £10  minimum. 
This  requirement  was  omitted  in  order  to  remove  the 
objection  urged  against  the  bill  of  1910  that  it  would  create 
fagot  votes.*  The  title  was  also  extended  so  as  to  make 

1  The  Common  Cause,  February  9,  1911,  p.  713. 

2  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxv :  738-46. 
*  Parliamentary  Papers,  1911,  vol.  v,  Bill  6. 

4  Fagot  votes  were  created  by  dividing  the  interests  in  houses  and  land 
with  a  view  to  the  multiplication  of  votes  for  election  purposes.  Anson, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  127. 


277]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  71 

amendments  possible  in  order  to  meet  the  objection  raised 
by  Mr.  Lloyd  George  the  previous  year.  Sir  George  Kemp 
estimated  that  the  bill  would,  if  passed,  enfranchise  about 
1,000,000  women. 

One  of  the  chief  objections  urged  against  this  bill  was 
that  it  prohibited  husband  and  wife  from  voting  in  the 
same  parliamentary  division.1  This  would  disqualify  prac- 
tically every  married  woman  unless  she  were  wealthy 
enough  to  qualify  in  a  constituency  in  which  her  husband 
did  not  reside.  It  would  enfranchise  among  the  poorer 
classes  only  those  who  were  widows  or  those  living  apart 
from  their  husbands  and  spinsters  who  possessed  the  house- 
hold qualification.  Mr.  Henderson  voiced  the  protests  of 
the  adult  suffragists  against  this  limited  scope  of  the  bill.2 
While  the  adult  suffragists  agreed  to  vote  for  the  bill  on 
second  reading  they  served  notice  that  in  the  committee 
stage  they  would  demand  an  extension  of  its  provisions. 

The  bill  passed  on  second  reading  by  vote  of  255  to  88, 
a  majority  of  167  as  compared  with  109  in  1910.  While 
the  majority  was  58  more  than  that  of  the  previous  year, 
yet  that  did  not  represent  a  clear  gain  in  strength  for  the 
movement;  the  total  vote  in  1910  was  489  as  compared  with 
343  on  this  occasion.  Each  party  gave  a  good  majority  for 
the  bill,  the  Labor  party  making  it  unanimous.3  The  vote 

1  Speech  by  Sir  Maurice  Levy,  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol. 
xxv :  750-5. 

2  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxv :  787-90. 

•An  analysis  of  the  vote  shows  the  following  party  alignment: 

For  Against 

Liberal  145  36 

Unionist 53  43 

Labor 26 

Nationalist 31  9 

255  88 

Votes  for  Women,  vol.  v,  p.  431. 


72  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [278 

did  not  accurately  represent  the  sentiment  in  the  Unionist 
party,  because  a  large  number  of  their  members  who  op- 
posed the  bill  were  not  present.  They  realized  that  the  bill 
would  pass  and,  therefore,  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  vote. 
The  debate  was  not  of  the  high  order  that  characterized 
that  of  the  previous  year.1  In  fact  not  ai  single  member  of 
the  front  benches  on  either  side  of  the  House  took  any 
part  in  the  discussion.  Very  few  of  them  attended;  at 
times  both  benches  were  entirely  vacant  and  the  Govern- 
ment also  was  unrepresented.  Most  of  the  leaders  spoke 
on  the  former  occasion  and  now  they  gave  the  private 
members  more  time  for  debate.  This  possibly  accounts  for 
the  quality  of  the  debate  as  characterized  by  The  Times 
as  being  "a  debate  conspicuous  for  flatness  and  platitudin- 
ous repetition  of  threadbare  arguments."  2 

Negotiation  for  Government  Facilities 

Following  the  second  reading  of  the  bill  there  was  ai 
long  period  of  negotiation  with  the  Government  for  facili- 
ties.3 The  promises  of  the  Government  before  the  election 
were  fairly  explicit,  yet  the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage 
had  been  deceived  so  often  that  they  continued  to  press  for 
more  reassuring  statements.  On  May  29,  in  answer  to 
questions  by  Viscount  Wolmer  in  regard  to  facilities  for 
the  Women's  Enfranchisement  Bill,  Mr.  Lloyd  George, 
speaking  for  the  Government,  replied  that  the  promise  given 
by  the  Prime  Minister  on  November  22,  1910,  was  that  if 
the  bill  was  read  a  second  time  facilities  would  be  given 

1  There  were  two  other  franchise  bills  introduced  during  the  session, 
both  were  accorded  a  first  reading  without  a  vote  but  neither  came  up 
again. 

*The  Times,  May  6,  1911,  p.  II. 

'This  is  given  in  detail  because  of  the  important  bearing  which  it  had 
upon  the  suffrage  movement. 


279]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  73 

during  the  existing  Parliament.  But  the  Government  was 
careful  not  to  bind  itself  to  the  first  session,  as  it  could  not 
foresee  the  time  necessary  for  its  own  measures.1  He 
said  that  because  of  the  pressure  of  the  Government  pro- 
posals, it  could  not  grant  further  facilities  for  the  present 
session.  He  continued :  "  The  Government  will  be  prepared 
next  session,  when  the  bill  has  been  again  read  a  second 
time,  to  give  a  week,  which  they  understand  to  be  the  time 
suggested  as  reasonable  by  the  promoters  for  its  further 
stages."  In  answer  to  further  questions  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
replied,  "We  are  bound  in  the  course  of  the  present 
Parliament  to  find  whatever  time  is  necessary  to  enable  the 
House  of  Commons  to  express  an  opinion  even  to  the 
final  stage  upon  the  proposals."  He  also  intimated  that 
this  would  be  given  in  ample  time  to  force  it  through  the 
House  of  Lords  under  the  Parliament  Act  of  1911  be- 
fore the  end  of  Parliament.  While  this  was  by  far  the 
most  encouraging  and  satisfactory  answer  that  had  thus 
far  been  given,  it  was  rather  ambiguous,  and  two  days  later 
at  a  meeting  of  the  Conciliation  Committee  a  resolution  was 
sent  to  the  Government  which  requested  that  the  facilities 
be  made  effective.  The  Coanimittee  demanded  that  the 
Government  agree  to  use  the  closure  if  necessary  and  that 
they  have  the  assistance  of  the  Ministers  in  moving  the 
suspension  of  the  eleven  o'clock  rule  in  order  to  pass  the 
bill.2 

The  next  day  Sir  Edward  Grey  speaking  at  a  dinner 
given  by  the  National  Liberal  Club  attempted  to  clear  up 
these  points  for  the  Government.  In  introducing  the  sub- 
ject he  said,  "  It  was  a  very  serious  matter  that  the  House 
of  Commons  should  year  after  year  be  getting  itself  into  an 
invidious  and  discreditable  position  in  regard  to  the  subject 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxvi:  703-5. 
*The  Times,  June  i,  1911,  p.  10. 


74  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [280 

by  passing  the  second  reading  again  and  again  and  not 
showing  whether  it  was  determined  to  proceed  with  it." 
He  explained  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Government 
that  the  promoters  of  the  bill  should  have  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  defend  themselves  by  the  means  which  the  rules  of 
the  House  placed  at  the  disposal  of  a  majority  for  de- 
fending themselves  against  obstruction  and  making  reason- 
able progress. 

The  Conciliation  Committee  through  its  chairman,  Lord 
Lytton,  still  pressed  Mr.  Asquith  for  a  definite  answer  to 
certain  specific  questions  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  closure. 
In  response  Mr.  Asquith  declared  that  the  term  "  week " 
would  be  interpreted  with  reasonable  "  elasticity  "  and  "  that 
the  Government  will  interpose  no  obstacle  to  a  proper  use 
of  the  closure,  and  that  if  .  .  .  .  the  bill  gets  through  the 
Committee  in  the  time  proposed,  the  extra  day  required  for 
report  and  third  reading  would  not  be  refused." 2  He  said 
that  while  the  Government  was  divided  in  opinion,  in  re- 
gard to  the  merits  of  women's  suffrage,  it  was  united  in  its 
determination'  to  carry  out  its  pre-election  promises  as  to 
facilities..  These  promises  were  so  nejassurinjg  that  the 
Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  announced  a  truce  of 
their  militant  tactics  pending  developments  in  order  to  give 
the  Government  opportunity  to  make  good  its  pledges. 

Because  of  confusing  public  statements  which  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  had  made  Mr.  Leif  Jones  on  August  16,  again 
asked  him  specific  questions  in  regard  to  facilities  for  the 
bill  supported  by  the  Conciliation  Committee.  Mr.  George 
replied  that,  "  the  Government  clearly  can  not  undertake 
to  give  facilities  for  more  than  one  bill  on  the  same  subject, 
but  any  bill  which  satisfied  those  tests  and  secured  a  second 
reading  would  be  treated  by  them  as  falling  within  their 

1  The  Times,  June  2,  1911,  p.  6. 
*/&»(/,  June  17,  1911,  p.  12. 


2g I  ]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  75 

engagement." l  This  statement  immediately  aroused  a 
good  deal  of  apprehension  and  suspicion  among  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Conciliation  Bill.  They  feared  that  some 
other  bill,  which  was  not  at  all  satisfactory  to  them,  might 
secure  a  better  place  upon  the  ballot  and  the  Government 
might  grant  this  bill  facilities  and  by  this  method,  fulfill  the 
letter  of  its  pledge  for  facilities  and  thus  effectively  evade 
any  responsibility  to  the  Conciliation  Committee.  With 
this  possibility  in  mind  Lord  Lytton  again  wrote  to  Mr. 
Asqudth  asking  for  definite  assurance  that  whatever  other 
bill  might  be  introduced  next  session  and  whatever  facili- 
ties were  granted  to  it,  the  Government  would  not  be  re- 
lieved of  its  promises  to  the  bill  promoted  by  the  Con- 
ciliation Committee.  In  answer  to  this  Mr.  Asquith  re- 
lied that  the  promises  .made  by  the  Government  would  be 
strictly  adhered  to,  both  in  letter  and  spirit. 

This  answer  seemed  satisfactorily  to  settle  the  policy  and 
determination  of  the  Government,  and  even  the  Women's 
Social  and  Political  Union  suspended  all  opposition  to  the 
Government  candidates,  and  supported  those  most  favorable 
•to  their  cause.     During  the  summer  of  1911  all  suffrage 
organizations  carried  on  a  rather  vigorous  program  of 
education  and  agitation.     Things  were  thus  apparently  mov- 
ing towards  a  victory  for  women's  suffrage.     The  suffrage 
forces  were  united  in  their  support  of  the  Conciliation  Com- 
mittee.    A  suffrage  bill  had  passed  two  successive  sessions 
of  the  House  of  Commons  with  large  majorities  and  the 
Parliament  Act  had.  removed  the  effective  veto  of  the  House 
of  Lords.     The  suspension  of  militant  tactics  also  produced 
a  calmer  atmosphere  in  which  to  consider  the  question. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxvii :  1912-14. 
*The  Times,  August  24,  1911,  p.  6. 


76  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [282 

Announcement  of  the  Reform  Bill 
On  November  7  Mr.  Asquith  received  a  deputation  which 
presented  a  memorial  on  behalf  of  the  Parliamentary 
Council  which  worked  in  connection  with  the  People's  Suf- 
frage League.  This  meeting  it  seems  had  been  arranged 
rather  on  the  quiet  and  nothing  had  been  heard  about  it 
among  the  suffragists.  The  deputation  was  presented  by 
Mr.  Henderson  who  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  out  of 
a  population  of  45,000,000  there  were  only  7,504,655  en- 
franchised.1 Mr.  Asquith  in  reply  said  that  the  subject 
of  adult  suffrage  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  reiterate  the 
promise  and  pledge  which  the  Government  had  made  to  the 
Conciliation  Committee  for  the  next  session  and  by  these 
pledges  it  must  abide.  But  asserting  that  a  much  broader 
problem  was  presented  by  the  question  of  adult  suffrage 
he  said,  "  We  believe  a  man's  right  to  vote  depends  upon 
his  being  a  citizen,  and  prima  facie  a  man  who  is  a 
citizen  of  full  age  and  competent  understanding  ought  toi 
be  entitled  to  a  vote,  but  he  ought  not  to  be  entitled  to  more 
than  one  vote."  He  continued  by  saying  that  all  the 
numerous  qualifications  as  lodgers,  owners,  occupiers,  and 
rate  payers  ought  to  be  entirely  swept  aside;  that  the 
franchise  should  be  based  upon  the  simple  qualification  of 
residence;  and  that  the  electors  should  be  placed  on  the 
register  by  a  public  registration  officer.  He  indicated  that 
the  Reform  Bill  which  the  Government  proposed  to  intro- 
duce the  next  session  would  be  based  upon  these  principles. 
While  the  bill  would  not  include  a  women's  suffrage  clause 
he  pledged  that  it  would  be  introduced  in  such  a  form  that 
it  would  be  open  to  the  House  of  Commons  to  make  an 
amendment  incorporating  women's  suffrage  if  it  so  desired. 
This  had  the  effect  of  a  bomb  shell  explosion  among  the 
suffrage  forces.  They  had  worked  for  half  a  century  to 

1  The  Times,  November  8,  1911,  p.  8. 


283]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  77 

gain  the  franchise  for  women.  They  had  at  last  received 
pledges  from  the  Government  for  facilities  for  the  bill 
supported  by  the  Conciliation  Committee,  and  now  the 
Government  in  the  face  of  this,  announced  its  hitention  of 
introducing  an  adult  manhood  suffrage  bill  upon  its  own 
initiative,  a  bill  for  which  there  was  little  popular  demand 
or  agitation.  The  cause  of  women's  suffrage  was  to  be  left 
to  the  mercies  of  an  amendment  to  this  Government  Bill. 
No  one  appreciated  the  vital  blow  that  this  announcement 
made  more  than  those  who  had  been  working  for  concilia- 
tion and  unity  among  suffrage  supporters.  This  was  cer- 
tain to  drive  rifts  into  their  ranks  which  would  be  fatal  to 
success.  The  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  lost 
no  time  in  serving  notice  on  the  Government  that  if  a 
Manhood  Suffrage  Bill  were  introduced  at  the  next  session 
they  would  revert  immediately  to  militant  tactics.1  They 
rejected  with  contempt  the  proposal  that  women  should 
depend  for  their  enfranchisement  upon  a  mere  amendment 
to  the  Reform  Bill. 

In  order  that  the  suffrage  societies  might  learn  more 
clearly  the  intention  of  the  Government,  they  asked  for  an 
interview  with  Mr.  Asquith  and  Mr.  Lloyd  George.  This 
was  arranged  for  November  17,  at  which  time  a  deputation 
was  received  representing  nine  societies;  including  the 
Women's  Social  and  Political  Union,  the  National  Union 
of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies,  the  Women's  Federal 
League,  the  Conservative  and  Unionist  Women's  Suffrage 
Franchise  Association,  and  the  Actresses'  Franchise  League. 
In  reply  to  the  speeches  made  by  the  representatives  of  the 
deputation  Mr.  Asquith  said  there  had  been  no  recession 
from  the  promises  for  the  Conciliation  Bill  and  the  Govern- 
ment was  still  ready  to  grant  facilities  for  any  bill  which 
met  the  qualification  of  being  capable  of  amendment.2  He 

1  The  Times,  November  8,  191 1,  p.  8. 
*Ibid.,  November  18,  1911,  p.  10. 


78  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [284 

argued  that  the  fact  that  the  Government  was  going  to 
introduce  a  Reform  Bill  in  no  way  altered  these  pledges  if 
the  Conciliation  Committee  cared  to  take  advantage  of 
them.  In  answer  to  a  question,  by  Mrs.  Fawcett,  he  said 
the  Government  proposed  to  push  the  Reform  Bill  through 
all  of  its  stages  in  1912,  and  that  it  would  be  drafted  in- 
such  a  way  as  to  be  capable  of  a  women's  suffrage  amend- 
ment. In  case  such  an  amendment  were  adopted  he  said 
the  Government  would  consider  it  an  integral  part  of  the 
bill  and  be  prepared  to  carry  it  through  its  final  stages. 
He  contended  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  as  head 
of  a  Government,  himself  not  believing  in  women's  suffrage 
and  the  Cabinet  divided  on  the  question,  to  make,  it  at 
Government  measure,  yet  it  would  not  be  inconsistent,  in 
case  the  House  made  an  amendment  to  the  Government  Bill, 
for  the  Government  then  to  assume  responsibility  for 
carrying  out  the  will  of  the  House. 

The  discord  the  Government  plan  was  destined  to  cause 
among  the  suffrage  ranks  was  shown  by  the  different  atti- 
tudes which  the  suffrage  societies  took  toward  the  policy 
of  the  Government.  The  Women's  Social  and  Political 
Union  immediately  issued  a  statement  in  which  they  de- 
clared that  the  position  taken  by  the  Government  was  one  of 
direct  hostility  to  the  claims  of  women  and  that  the  intro- 
duction of  such  a  measure  made  any  nonpartisan  solution 
of  the  question  impossible.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies  and  the 
Women's  Freedom!  League  were  satisfied  that  their  chances 
for  success  had  not  been  diminished  by  the  policy  of  the 
Government.  A  statement  was  issued  which  declared  that 
nothing  but  an  unwise  handling  of  the  situation  could  re- 
sult in  failure. 

A  few  days  later,  on  November  24,  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
made  a  speech  at  Bath  which  apparently  reflected  his  real 


285]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  79 

attitude  in  regard  to  the  effect  which  the  policy  of  the 
Government  would  have  upon  the  Conciliation  Bill.1  The 
meeting  was  the  object  of  a  determined  attack  of  the 
militants  who  by  this  juncture  had  come  to>  look  upon  Mr. 
Lloyd  George  as  the  chief  betrayer  of  the  women's  cause. 
In  discussing  the  position,  of  women's  suffrage  and  the 
attitude  of  the  militants  he  said  the  Conciliation  Bill  had 
been  "  torpedoed  "  and  the  way  was  now  clear  for  a  broad 
and  democratic  amendment  to  the  Reform  Bill  which  would 
insure  not  a  limited  class  of  women  chosen  by  Tory  can- 
vassers but  one  which  would  include  the  workingman's 
wife.  He  closed  with  an  appeal  for  women's  suffrage  and 
an  appeal  to  Liberals  to  follow  his  leadership.  Whatever 
was  the  thought  by  Mr.  Asquith.  as  to  the  effect  of  the  Re- 
form Bill  upon1  the  success  of  the  Conciliation  Bill,  it  was 
apparent  that  Mr.  Lloyd  George  thought  it  had  been 
"  torpedoed."  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Mr.  Asquith  also 
was  not  shrewd  enough  to  recognize  the  effect  which  it 
would  have,  although  on1  November  27,  in  Parliament  in 
answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Smith  he  reaffirmed  his  former 
statement  that  the  pledge  to  the  Conciliation  Committee 
held  good. 

The  opening  of  1912  saw  the  rifts  within  the  ranks  of 
the  suffrage  supporters  developing  rapidly;  it  was  apparent 
that  the  policy  of  the  Government  had  disrupted  the  united 
support  which  had  been  back  of  the  two>  previous  Con- 
ciliation Bills.  Nonpartisan  support  was  no  longer  possible. 
The  National  Administrative  Council  of  the  Independent 
Labor  party  passed  a  resolution  opposing  the  policy  of  the 
Government  and  demanded  that  in  any  franchise  bill  men 
and  women  should  be  granted,  the  suffrage  on  the  same 
basis.2  They  demanded  adult  suffrage  and  since  there  was 

1  The  Times,  November  25,  1911,  p.  n. 

*  Independent  Labor  Party  Report,  1912,  p.  20. 


80  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [286 

at  least  some  possibility  of  getting  an  amendment  to  the 
Reform  Bill,  they  were  not  enthusiastic  in  their  support  of 
the  Conciliation  Bill.  The  Unionist  Suffrage  supporters 
were  in  the  main  favorable  only  to  a  limited  extension  of 
the  Franchise  and  the  Unionist  members  of  the  Conciliation 
Committee  agreed  to  resist  any  amendment  to  the  Reform 
Bill  which  would  extend  the  franchise  to  women  on  too 
broad  a  basis.  The  Liberal  members,  on  the  contrary, 
pledged  themselves  to1  do  their  utmost  to  enfranchise  women 
on  a  broad  democratic  basis  either  by  means  of  a  private 
members'  bill  such  as  the  Conciliation  Bill  or  by  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Reform  Bill.  All  the  suffrage  societies  had 
supported  the  former  Conciliation  Bill.  But  now,  because 
of  the  Government's  intention  to  introduce  a  Reform  Bill 
without  the  inclusion  of  women,  the  militant  group  renewed 
their  anti-Government  policy  and  even  refused  to  support 
the  Conciliation  Bill.  The  constitutional  suffrage  societies 
continued  their  support.  Big  mass  meetings  and  demon- 
strations were  held  by  both  the  supporters  and  opponents  of 
women's  suffrage  in  anticipation  of  the  impending  events. 

After  the  King's  speech,  which  made  no  reference  to  the 
question  of  women's  suffrage,  although  the  Reform  Bill 
was  mentioned,  the  militants  served  notice  that  militant 
methods  in  a  most  vigorous  form  would  be  resorted  to. 
They  made  good  their  threats,  for  on  March  I,  they  took 
the  police  unaware  and  attacked  shop  windows  in  the  West 
End  of  London.  They  showed  no  respect  of  persons ;  they 
broke  almost  every  shop  window  on  both  sides  of  the 
streets  which  they  attacked,  including  the  West  Strand 
Post  Office,  tobacconists'  shops,  banks,  tailors',  and  jewelers' 
shops.1  Between  £4,000  and  £5,000  damage  was  done  before 
they  could  be  stopped  by  the  police.  They  made  no  at- 

1  The  Times,  March  2,  1912,  p.  8. 


287]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  8l 

tempt  to  escape  and  on  this  and  subsequent  days  arrests 
were  made.  This  was  only  the  beginning  of  a  long  series 
of  such  attacks  which  constantly  exasperated  the  public 
and  annoyed  the  police.  With  the  inauguration  of  this 
policy  there  was  a  definite  break  between  the  militant  and 
the  constitutional  societies;  they  ceased  to  cooperate. 
The  National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies  re- 
pudiated these  methods  as  severely  as  did  the  anti-suffra- 
gists. 

Agg-Gardner' s  Conciliation  BUI  of  1912 

On  February  16,  1912,  in  the  ballot  for  private  members' 
bills  Mr.  Agg-Gardner  secured  third  place  and  immediately 
served  notice  that  he  would  introduce  the  Conciliation  Bill. 
The  Bill  was  identical  with  the  one  backed  by  the  Concilia- 
tion Committee  in  1911.  In  moving  a  second  reading  on 
March  28,  Mr.  Agg-Gardner  referred  to  the  fate  of  the  bill 
in  previous  sessions  but  said  the  prospects  were  much  more 
hopeful  in  this  session  because  of  the  promise  of  the 
Government  for  facilities.  He  admitted,  however,  that 
within  the  past  few  weeks  the  prospects  of  its  passage  had 
been  greatly  diminished  by  the  deplorable  conduct  of  the 
militant  group,  who  though  hostile  to  the  bill  itself  desired 
the  enfranchisement  of  women.1  He  appealed  to  the 
former  supporters  of  the  bill  not  to  permit  their  sympathies 
to  be  alienated  by  these  events. 

Viscount  Helmsby  opposed  the  bill  chiefly  because  of 
the  militant  tactics  which  had  been  used  in  the  attempt  to 
force  the  Government  to  take  action.2  Mr.  Eugene  Wason 
announced  that  while  he  had  always  voted  for  women's 
suffrage,  he  would  cast  his  vote  against  it  for  similar 
reasons.3  Sir  Edward  Grey  following  this  speech  said  that 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxxvi :  615-19. 
1  bid.,  637-46. 
8  Ibid.,  669-71. 


g2  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [288 

he  was  equally  determined  to  continue  to  cast  his  vote  for 
the  bill  in  spite  of  the  militant  tactics.1  Mr.  Asquith  in 
opposing  the  bill  did  not  attempt  to  hide  behind  any  excuses 
but  opposed  it  because  of  the  principle  which  was  to  elimin- 
ate the  differences  in  sex  as  far  as  political  life  was  con- 
cerned. He  reiterated  his  former  statement  that  the  bill 
was  not,  according  to  his  belief,  demanded  or  desired  by  a 
majority  of  either  the  men  or  the  women  of  the  country.2 
Taken  as  a  whole,  the  debate  while  characterized  by  serious- 
ness on  both  sides  did  not  reach  the  high  level  of  that  of 
1910.  There  was  no  lobbying,  no  eager  propaganda  work 
by  the  extreme  suffragettes  as  in  the  previous  year.  The 
lobby  was  empty  and  at  times  there  was  a  very  small  atten- 
dance of  members. 

The  apprehensions  of  the  supporters  of  the  bill  were  well 
founded,  for  the  motion  failed  by  a  vote  of  208  ayes  to 
222  noes.  The  majority  of  167  of  the  previous  year  had 
been  converted  into  an  adverse  vote  of  14.  An  analysis  of 
the  vote  and  a  study  of  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
situation  make  it  clear  that  the  vote  did  not  represent  in 
any  accurate  way  a  change  in  attitude  of  the  members  to- 
wards women's  suffrage.3  The  greatest  change  in  party  vote 
— one  which  of  itself  would  have  defeated  the  bill — was! 
that  of  the  Nationalists.  It  seems  that  their  vote  was  not 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxxvi:  671-77. 

*/wa.,  653-56. 

*The  parties  voted  as  follows: 

Against  For 

Liberals  73  117 

Unionists 1 14  63 

Nationalists 35 

Independent  Nationalists —  3 

Labor —  25 

222  208 

The  Times,  March  30,  1912,  p.  9. 


289]        WOMEN'S  SUFFRAGE  A  PRACTICAL  ISSUE  83 

determined  at  all  by  the  suffrage  question  but  by  the  Home 
Rule  situation.  They  placed  the  interests  of  Home  Rule 
above  that  of  women's  suffrage  and  sacrificed  one  for  the 
interest  of  the  other.  The  Nationalists  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Mr.  Redmond  were  anxious  to  save  as  much  tim£ 
for  the  discussion  of  Home  Rule  as  possible,  and  they  saw 
in  the  defeat  of  the  women's  suffrage  bill  a  good  opportunity 
to  save  a  week's  time  for  their  own  cause.  There  was  also 
the  desire  to  relieve  the  Government  of  the  embarrassment 
of  the  women's  suffrage  question  because  there  were  fears 
that  if  the  matter  were  pressed,  open  friction  might 
develop  in  the  Cabinet  which  would  be  derogatory  to  Home 
Rule.  The  Nationalists  therefore,  voted  35  against  the 
bill,  (10  of  these  voted  for  it  in  1911)  and  10  abstained 
from  voting.  Among  these  latter  were  the  Nationalist 
members  of  the  Conciliation  Committee.  In  1911  the 
Nationalist  vote  had  been  31  to  9  for  the  bill.  Their  action 
in  1912  caused  no  little  criticism  from  the  Liberals. 

The  coal  strike  which  occurred  at  this  time  was  another 
contributory  circumstance  leading  to  the  defeat  of  the  bill. 
This  strike  demianded  the  attention!  of  13  Labor  members 
in  their  constituencies.  This  prevented  them  from  casting 
their  votes  for  the  bill  along  with  the  other  25  Labor  votes. 

The  window-smashing  campaign  o>f  the  militants  also  had 
an  influence  upon  the  vote.  It  was  discussed  in  almost 
every  speech.  Those  who  continued  to  support  the  bill  ap- 
pealed to  the  former  supporters  not  to  be  prejudiced  against 
the  bill  by  these  tactics  of  the  minority.  From  an  examina- 
tion of  the  vote  it  appears  that  28  members  who  voted  for 
the  bill  in  1911  voted  against  it  in  1912;  33  members  who 
voted  for  it,  in  1911  were  absent  on  this  vote;  but  only 
3  who  voted  against  it  in  1911  were  absent  on  this  occasion. 
Only  one  member  who  voted  against  it  in  1911  voted  for  the 
bill  in  1912.  At  best,  therefore,  the  militants  had  gained 


84  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [290 

only  one  vote,  and  it  is  certain  that  of  the  28  who  reversed 
their  votes  and  the  33  who  absented  themselves  a  good 
many  were  influenced  by  the  militant  policy — possibly  a 
sufficient  number  in  themselves  to  have  defeated  the  bill. 
This  gave  especially  the  lukewarm  supporters  of  the  cause 
a  good  excuse  to  change  their  votes. 

Because  of  these  circumstances  the  supporters  of  women's 
suffrage  might  well  claim,  as  they  did,  that  the  defeat  of  the 
bill  could  not  be  taken  as  a  sign  of  increasing  hostility  to 
the  enfranchisement  of  women.  The  militants  announced 
that  they  were  not  surprised  at  the  results  as  they  had 
known  for  weeks  that  the  Nationalists  were  going  to  vote 
against  the  bill.  They  reiterated  their  demand  that  the 
Government  assume  responsibility  for  a  women's  suffrage 
bill  as  the  only  possible  means  of  securing  its  enactment  into 
law;  otherwise  the  amendment  to  the  Reform  Bill  would 
suffer  the  same  fate. 

The  policy  which  the  Government  followed  introduced 
so  many  new  elements  into  the  controversy  that  it  had  in- 
deed successfully  "torpedoed"  the  Conciliation  Bill.  For 
a  time  there  was  a  strong  possibility  that  this  bill  might 
become  a  law.  The  injection  of  the  Government  Reform 
Bill  into  the  controversy  made  this  nonpartisan  solution  of 
the  question  impossible.  A  new  plan  of  attack  had  to  be 
built  up  as  a  result  of  these  reversals.  But  the  staunch 
supporters  of  the  cause  were  not  discouraged.  They  began 
immediately  to  mobilize  their  forces  to  secure  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Reform  Bill  which  would  command  the  sup- 
port of  all  classes  of  suffrage  workers. 


CHAPTER  V 
FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912 

No  electoral  reform  legislation  had  been  enacted  in 
England  since  the  Franchise  Act  o>f  1884  and  the  Redis- 
tribution Act  of  1885.  In  1912,  therefore,  it  had  been 
twenty-seven  years  since  any  change  had  been  made  in  the 
parliamentary  election  laws  or  in  the  distribution  of  seats 
among  electoral  districts.  During  all  this  time  no  general 
bill  dealing  with  the  subject  had  been  backed  by  any 
Government.  One  or  two  so-called  piecemeal  measures 
had  been  introduced  to  remedy  certain  anomalies  in  the 
system.  Such,  for  example,  were  the  Election  and  Regis- 
tration Bill  of  1908*  and  the  London  Election  Bill  of  i9O9.a 
For  many  years  franchise  and  electoral  reforms  had  been 
among  the  cardinal  demands  of  the  Liberals.  They  had 
demanded  especially  the  abolition  of  plural  voting,  the 
simplification  of  the  franchise  qualifications,  the  shortening 
of  the  residence  period,  and  the  establishment  of  govern- 
ment machinery  for  registration.  When  the  question  of 
the  abolition  of  plural  voting  was  presented,  the  Unionists 
always  appeared  as  the  champions  of  redistribution.  From 
the  Labor  party  had  come  the  insistent  demand  for  adult 
suffrage.  The  demand  for  women's  suffrage,  the  only  re- 
form which  aroused  any  popular  enthusiasm,  was  backed 
by  representatives  from  all  parties,  but  neither  of  the  lead- 
ing parties  had  been  able  to  unite  upon  it. 

1  Supra,  p.  24. 

2  Supra,  p.  26. 


86  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [292 

All  the  forces  which  had  been  working  for  this  or  that 
electoral  or  franchise  reform,  centered  their  attention  in 
1912  upon  the  proposed  Government  Reform  Bill.  The 
Government  had  been  unable  to  secure  the  passage  of  the 
Plural  Voting  Bill  because  of  the  opposition  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  but  in  1911  the  veto  of  the  Lords  had  been  so 
modified  that  it  no  longer  offered  insuperable  obstacles.  In 
order  to  meet  the  Liberal  demands  for  electoral  reforms  the 
Government,  as  announced  by  Mr.  Asquith  in  November, 
1911,  agreed  to  introduce  a  General  Electoral  Reform1  Bill 
in  1912.  While  this  bill  did  not  include  a  women's  suffrage 
clause  it  was  to  be  so  drafted  that  the  House  would  be  free 
to  amend  the  bill  in  this  respect  if  it  so  desired.  It  was 
the  promise  of  this  bill,  as  has  been  seen,  which  had  played 
such  an  important  part  in  the  defeat  of  the  third  Concilia- 
tion Bill. 

The  bill  was  introduced  for  a  first  reading  by  Mr.  J.  A. 
Pease.  President  of  the  Board  of  Education,  on  June  17, 
I9I2.1  Its  revolutionary  character  was  shown  by  the  fact 
that  it  proposed  totally  to  repeal  thirty  statutes  and  partially 
to  repeal  forty-seven  others.  It  was  thus  planned  to  sweep 
away  in  large  part  the  old  complicated  system  and  start 
anew  upon  a  simplified  basis.  The  bill  as  introduced  pro- 
posed four  important1  changes  inl  the  electoral  system.11 
First,  it  made  residence  or  occupation  without  regard  to 
value  the  basic  qualification  for  the  franchise.  Any  adult 
male  who  possessed  such  a  qualification  in  any  constituency 
could  be  registered  as  an  elector.  Another  clause  made 
the  effects  of  this  provision  perfectly  clear  by  abolishing  the 
university  constituency  and  removing  the  disabilities  of 
peers  so  that  they  might  be  registered  as  parliamentary 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xxxix :  1325-46. 
3  Parliamentary  Papers.  1012.  vol.  i,  no.  243. 


293]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912       87 

electors.  It  left  untouched,  however,  the  legal  incapacities 
of  paupers,  aliens,  and  felons.  Second,  plural  voting  was 
to  be  effectually  abolished  by  the  provision  that  an  elector 
could  not  be  registered  in  more  than  one  constituency  or  in 
more  than  one  division  of  a  borough  or  county  in  which  he 
might  possess  the  necessary  qualifications.  Third,  the  length 
of  residence  required  for  the  qualifying  period  was  reduced 
to  six  months  continuous  residence  or  occupation  in  a 
constituency.  In  case  an  elector  moved  from  one  con- 
stituency into  another  he  would  be  entitled  to  continue  to 
be  registered  in  his  old  district  for  a  period,  not  to  exceed 
six  months,  after  he  had  ceased  to  reside  therein.  This 
would  prevent  him!  from  losing  his  vote  in  his  old  con- 
stituency until  he  had  qualified  in  another  constituency  in 
case  an  election  intervened.  Fourth,  a  system  of  continu- 
ous registration  was  introduced.  The  overseers  were  re- 
quired to  furnish  a  complete  list  of  all  persons  possessing) 
the  qualifications  within  their  parish  to  the  registration 
officers.  This  register  was  to  be  published  at  least  once  a 
year  and  a  supplementary  list  was  to  be  issued  each  month 
which  would  include  all  changes  made  during  this  period. 
All  cases  arising  out  of  objections  to  or  changes  in  the  regis- 
tration were  to  be  tried  in  the  county  court  after  seven 
days'  notice  was  served.  This  feature  abolished  the  work 
of  the  revising  barristers.  Inequality  of  representation  was 
left  untouched  by  the  bill. 

'Mr.  Pease  estimated  that  the  bill  would  result  in  a  net 
increase  of  between  2,000,000  and  2,500,000  electors  in 
the  country  after  making  deductions  due  to  the  abolition  of 
some  525,000  plural  voters  and  49,614  university  voters. 
The  chief  classes  enfranchised  by  the  bill  would  be  male 
domestic  servants  living  in  their  master's  house  and  sons 
living  with  their  fathers  or  in  homes  of  relatives,  and 
peers.  The  shorter  residence  period  would  chiefly  prevent 


88  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [294 

electors  from  being  disfranchised  because  of  moving'  from 
one  constituency  to  another. 

The  bill  was  introduced  for  a  second  reading  by  Mr. 
Harcourt  on  July  8.1  It  was  unfortunate  that  the  Govern- 
ment intrusted  the  bill  to  such  an  avowed  foe  of  women's 
suffrage.  This  immediately  aroused  suspicion  that  the 
Government  would  use  all  possible  means  to  defeat  the 
women's  suffrage  amendment  although  it  had  announced 
that  it  would  remain  neutral  in  the  matter.  The  chief 
points  of  attack  of  practically  all  of  the  speakers  during  the 
first  day's  debate  were  that  the  bill  omitted  a  redistribution 
proposal,  that  it  abolished  plural  voting,  and  especially  that 
the  Government  was  not  united  upon  the  most  important 
aspect  of  the  whole  problem,  the  question  of  women's  suf- 
frage. Although  the  bill  was  silent  upon  this  subject  it 
was  apparent  from  the  very  first  debate  that  the  question  of 
women's  suffrage  would  be  one  of  the  chief  considerations 
in  the  discussion. 

The  introduction  of  previous  reform  bills,  the  Govern- 
ment Plural  Voting  Bill,  and  even  the  private  members' 
women's  suffrage  bills  had  all  attracted  much  popular 
attention  and  commanded  a  good  attendance  of  the  House. 
Not  so  with  the  first  day's  debate  upon  this  Government 
Reform  Bill.  Very  little  interest  was  shown;  at  one  time 
the  attendance  in  the  House  was  as  low  as  twelve.  The 
Government  chided  the  Opposition  for  demanding  six  days 
in  which  to  discuss  the  measure  when  their  members 
evidenced  so  little  interest  in  the  question.  Chief  interest 
awaited  the  committee  stage  when  the  women's  suffrage 
amendments  were  to  be  considered. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Asquith  in  relation  to  the  women's 
suffrage  amendment  was  the  cause  of  the  greatest  amount 
of  criticism.  It  was  mentioned  in  some  phase  in  almost 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xl :  1632. 


295]     PRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  i9i2       89 

every  speech.  As  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Balfour  the  Govern- 
ment had  brought  forward  a  franchise  bill  which  it  pn> 
posed  to  push  through  the  House  with  all  the  pressure  that 
could  be  brought  by  the  use  of  its  party  machinery.  In 
the  committee  stage  the  Government  would  then  abandon 
the  leadership  upon  the  most  important  part  of  the  whole 
measure  and  permit  amendments  to  be  made,  which  the 
Prime  Minister  maintained  would  prove  disastrous  to  the 
country.  If  they  were  adopted  by  the  House,  however, 
Mr.  Asquith  proposed  to  use  all  the  machinery  of  the  party 
again  on  the  third  reading  to  insure  the  adoption  of  the 
bill  as  amended.  It  was  repeatedly  asserted  that  he  had 
taken  an  untenable  position — that  he  could  not  throw 
this  responsibility  back  upon  the  House.  It  was  his  duty, 
his  critics  maintained,  to  bring  forth  a  definite  program  on 
the  question  and  either  stand  or  fall  by  it.  Mr.  Asquith  in 
reply  to  his  critics  defended  the  course  pursued  by  the 
Government  on  the  ground  that  since  the  question  of 
women's  suffrage  ran  athwart  parties,  it  was  the  only  policy 
that  any  Government  could  possibly  follow,  and  he  called 
attention  to  the  division  in  the  Opposition  over  the  same 
question.1 

Sir  Henry  Craik  appeared  as  the  chief  defender  of  the 
system  of  university  representation.  He  predicted  the 
future  would  witness  a  strong  demand  from  the  younger 
universities  for  an  extension  rather  than  an  abolition  of 
the  system  of  university  representation.  At  the  end  of  the 
third  day's  debate  on  July  12,  the  bill  passed  a  second 
reading  by  a  vote  of  290  ayes  to  218  noes.  The  debate  on 
the  whole  was  much  less  spirited  than  that  on  the  Plural 
Voting  Bill  of  1906.  There  was  nothing  like  the  bitter 
partisan  attitude  over  the  abolition  of  plural  voting  which 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xl :  2267-77. 


go  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [296 

was  displayed  at  that  time.  In  fact  it  appeared  that  the 
fight  over  this  question  was  practically  won  before  the  bill 
was  introduced. 

The  bill  was  not  one  which  commanded  great  support 
from;  any  party  or  any  particular  group  or  section  of  people. 
The  adult  suffragists  were  not  enthusiastic  about  the 
measure  because  it  did  not  go  far  enough.  The  support  of 
the  Labor  party  was  thus  largely  alienated.  The  Liberal 
women's  suffrage  supporters  were  not  enthusiastic  about 
it  because  the  whole  question  concerning  which  they  were 
most  interested  was  excluded  from  consideration  entirely. 
The  Conservative  women's  suffrage  supporters,  for  partisan 
reasons,  opposed  the  bill  for  fear  it  would  result  in  advan- 
tage to  the  Liberal  party.  There  was  behind  the  bill  no 
class  solidarity  to  arouse  popular  enthusiasm.  This  had 
been  the  chief  driving  force  back  of  the  other  great  electoral 
reform  bills. 

The  bill  did  not  come  up  for  consideration  again  until 
January  23,  1913.  During  this  interval  a  great  many  de- 
velopments had  taken  place  which  affected  materially  the 
position  of  the  bill  and  the  attitude  which  various  factions 
took  towards  it.  The  anti-suffrage  workers  did  all  in  their 
power  to  complicate  the  situation  and  to  embarrass  the 
Government.  The  suffrage  supporters  themselves  were 
divided  as  to  the  extent  of  franchise  which  should  be 
granted  and  the  character  of  amendment  to  be  supported. 
There  was  also  the  Home  Rule  Bill  which  in  itself  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the  question  of  women's 
suffrage,  yet  it  had  an  important  practical  relation.  As 
in  the  case  of  the  Conciliation  Bill,  which  the  Nationalists 
had  been  largely  responsible  for  defeating,  there  was  danger 
that  the  same  motives  would  cause  them  to  oppose  any 
women's  suffrage  amendments.  Rumors  were  rife  that  if 
a  women's  suffrage  amendment  were  adopted  there  would 


297]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912       91 

be  resignations  from  the  Cabinet,  which  might  embarrass 
the  Government  to  such  an  extent  that  the  Home  Rule  Bill 
could  not  be  passed. 

During  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1912  the  militants 
continued  their  campaign  of  opposition  to  the  Government 
with  increasing  vigor.  They  interrupted  meetings  of 
Government  speakers  whenever  possible.  Stone  throwing* 
and  window  breaking  had  become  a  regular  policy  and  there 
had  been  occasional  attempts  at  arson.  In  October  the  an- 
nouncement was  also  made  that  they  would  oppose  the 
Labor  members  as  well  as  the  Government  members.1  As 
the  time  approached  for  the  consideration  of  the  women's 
suffrage  amendments  to  the  bill,  the  militants  decided  to 
suspend  militant  tactics  so  as  not  to  complicate  the  situa- 
tion. On  January  13,  therefore,  Mrs.  Pankhurst  announced 
that  they  would  declare  a  truce  and  that  there  would  be 
no  more  acts  of  militancy  until  after  the  Government  had 
acted  on  the  women's  suffrage  question  and  the  last  amend- 
ment was  disposed  of.  She,  however,  reiterated  her  belief 
in  militancy  and  served  notice  upon  the  Government  that  if 
the  amendments  were  defeated  there  would  be  more 
militant  acts  committed  than  the  Government  had  ever 
dared  to  contemplate.2 

In  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  the  conservative  suffrage 
workers  it  was  found  impossible  to  get  the  support  of  all 
the  suffrage  forces  back  of  any  Conciliation  amendment. 
This  in  itself  greatly  lessened  the  possibility  of  success.  The 
suffrage  supporters  finally  agreed  upon  four  amendments 
which  were  to  be  introduced  in  the  order  of  their  impor- 
tance, measured  by  the  number  who  would  be  enfranchised 
by  their  several  provisions.  The  first,  or  the  Grey  amend- 
ment, was  to  omit  the  word  "  male  "  and  substitute  therefor 

1  The  Times,  October  18,  1912,  p.  8. 
1  Ibid.,  January  14,  1913,  p.  12. 


92  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [298 

the  clause  "every  person  shall  be  entitled."  The  debate 
upon  the  principle  of  women's  suffrage  was  to  take  place 
over  this  amendment.  If  it  should  be  defeated  the  Speaker 
would  rule  all  the  others  out  of  order.  But  if  it  passed 
it  would  not  settle  the  question  as  the  courts  had  ruled  that 
"  person  "  meant  male  person.  The  second,  or  Henderson 
amednment,  for  adult  suffrage,  would  substitute  for 
"person  shall  be  qualified"  the  clause  "a  person  of  either 
sex  shall  be  qualified."  This  amendment  was  supported 
generally  by  the  Labor  party  and  would  place  women  on 
exactly  the  same  basis  as  men.  It  would  enfranchise  be- 
tween 11,000,000  and  13,000,000  women.  The  third,  or 
so-called  Dickinson  amendment,  would  enfranchise  the 
wives  of  electors.  This  had  the  support  of  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  and  most  of  the  radical  suffragists.  It  would  en- 
franchise about  6,000,000  women.  The  fourth,  known  as 
the  Conciliation  Amendment,  was  practically  identical  with 
the  Conciliation  Bill  of  the  previous  year  and  proposed  to 
give  the  franchise  to  women  who  possessed  the  municipal 
franchise,  that  is,  those  who  were  independent  occupiers. 
This  if  carried  would  errfranchise  about  1,250,000  women. 
These  different  amendments  illustrate  the  divided  condition 
of  the  suffrage  ranks. 

On  January  23,  1913,  just  before  Mr.  Asquith  introduced 
his  motion  in  regard  to  procedure  for  the  committee  stage, 
Mr.  Bonar  Law  made  a  move  to  defeat  the  bill.  He  as- 
serted that  if  any  of  the  women's  suffrage  amendments  were 
incorporated  and  the  Government  withdrew  the  occupation 
qualification  for  the  franchise,  these  alterations  would  so 
change  the  nature  of  the  bill,  that  according  to  parliamentary 
procedure  a  new  bill  would  have  to  be  introduced.1  He 
asked  a  ruling  on  this  point  of  procedure.  The  Speaker 
replied  that  he  could  make  no  ruling  in  advance  upon  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii:  643-4. 


299]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912       93 

particular  amendments.  But  he  said,  "  Broadly  speaking 
....  if  such  substantial  amendments  are  made  during  the 
passage  of  a  bill  in  committee  as  materially  to  affect  the 
form  and  substance  of  the  bill  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it 
for  all  practical  purposes  a  new  bill,  then  it  is  necessary  for 
that  bill  to  be  withdrawn  and  a  new  bill  to  be  introduced." 
While  he  did  not  apply  this  principle,  the  general  imipres- 
sion  was  that  if  these  amendments  were  adopted  then  the 
bill  would  have  to  be  withdrawn  and  a  new  one  introduced. 
As  soon  as  the  Speaker's  decision  was  announced,  accusa- 
tions were  current  on  all  hands  of  treachery  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  and  betrayal  by  Mr.  Asquith.  The  anti-suf- 
frage press  took  great  comfort  from  these  developments. 

In  spite  of  the  possibility  of  the  bill's  being  withdrawn, 
the  amendments  were  proceeded  with.  It  had  been  agreed 
under  the  closure  proceedings  that  the  amendments  dealing 
with  women's  suffrage  should  be  considered  first  in  com- 
mittee. In  accordance  with  this  understanding  the  first 
amendment  proposed  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  was 
the  Grey  amendment  introduced  by  Mr.  Alfred  Lyttelton 
providing  that  the  word  "male"  (be  omitted  from  the  bill.1 
The  fact  that  this  question  entirely  ran  athwart  party  lines 
was  illustrated  by  the  opening  stages  of  the  struggle.  It 
was  the  Liberal  party  which  was  really  committed  to  the 
policy  of  women's  suffrage,  yet  the  Prime  Minister  was 
opposed  to  it.  The  first  amendment  to  bring  it  about  was  in 
the  name  of  Sir  Edward  Grey  of  the  Foreign  Office,  but  it 
was  introduced  by  a  member  of  the  opposite  party — a  party 
which,  traditionally  at  least,  opposed  women's  suffrage. 

Mr.  Harcourt  in  the  opening  speech  in  opposition  to  the 
proposed  amendment,  made  a  rather  vigorous  attack  upon 
Sir  Edward  Grey  and  Mr.  Lloyd  George  because  of  their 
support  of  women's  suffrage — an  attack  which  caused  a 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii :  882-9. 


94  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [300 

great  deal  of  apprehension  and  was  used  as  an  argument 
that  if  the  amendment  carried  there  would  'be  resignations 
from  the  Cabinet.  He  advanced  the  old  argument  that 
women  were  physiologically  and  mentally  different  from 
men  and  unsuited  to  deal  with  political  problems;  but  he 
said  that  if  the  barrier  were  once  removed  he  would  vote 
for  adult  suffrage. 

Mr.  H.  W.  Forster,  who  had  been  counted  among  the 
supporters  of  women's  suffrage,  likewise  declared  his  inten- 
tion of  voting  against  the  amendment  because  of  the  fear  of 
adult  suffrage.1  This  argument  had  been  advanced  by  the 
anti-suffragists  in  order  to  defeat  the  amendmfent  and  seems 
to  have  caused  a  change  in  attitude  of  the  less  ardent  sup- 
porters of  the  cause.  The  same  old  arguments  were  pre- 
sented on  both  sides  of  the  question,  a  good  deal  of  atten- 
tion being  given  to  the  attempt  to  prove  either  an  increase 
or  decrease  in  the  popular  demand  for  the  reform.  The 
effect  of  militant  tactics  also  occupied  considerable  time  in 
the  discussion, 

The  statement  of  the  Speaker  made  the  discussion  of  less 
practical  value  than  it  would  have  been  otherwise  because 
both  supporters  and  opponents  of  the  bill  realized  that  if 
the  amendments  were  passed  the  bill  would  have  to  be  with- 
drawn. Both  the  militant  and  the  constitutional  societies 
recognized  that  there  was  now  no  opportunity  of  obtaining 
women's  suffrage  during  the  session.  The  Women's  Social 
and  Political  Union  urged  both  Sir  Edward  Grey  and  Mr. 
Lloyd  George  to  resign  unless  the  Government  would  agree 
to  make  women's  suffrage  a  Government  measure.  The 
National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies  demanded 
that  the  Government  make  a  declaration  of  its  policy  as  to 
how  it  was  going  to  fulfill  its  pledges  to  the  women's  suf- 
frage societies. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii :  907-9. 


301  ]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912       95 

The  Withdrawal  of  the  Bill 

At  the  opening  of  the  discussion  on  January  27,  Mr. 
Asquith  requested  the  Speaker  to  make  a  definite  ruling  upon 
the  status  of  the  Franchise  Bill  in  case  the  women's  suf- 
frage amendments  were  adopted  in  the  committee.  The 
Speaker  ruled  that  if  these  amendments  were  adopted,  they 
would  introduce  a  new  element  which  would  so  change  the 
character  of  the  bill  as  to  make  it  substantially  a  new  one, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the  House  the  bill 
should  be  withdrawn  and  a  new  bill  introduced.1 

Mr.  Asquith  attempted  to  justify  the  procedure  which 
had  been  followed  by  the  Government  and  emphasized  the 
fact  that  such  a  ruling  was  not  in  the  least  anticipated  by 
the  Government  nor  a  majority  of  the  House.  He  assured 
them  that  the  question  had  not  been  overlooked  by  the 
Government  in  the  consideration  and  drafting  of  the  bill. 
It  had  followed  the  precedents  in  both  1867  and  1884 
when  women's  suffrage  amendments  had  been  introduced 
in  committee,  and  in  neither  case  had  the  ruling  of  the 
Speaker  been  against  the  introduction  of  such  amendments; 
in  both  cases  they  were  debated  in  committee.  He  pointed 
out  that  the  bill  was  framied  deliberately  to  carry  out  thei 
pledge  of  the  Government  to  permit  the  discussion  of  the 
women's  suffrage  question  and  the  word  "male"  appeared 
in  the  first  clause  so  as  to  facilitate  that  discussion. 

The  ruling  of  the  Speaker  made  it  necessary  for  the 
Government  to  change  its  procedure  radically.  Mr.  Asquith 
announced  that  it  would  be  quite  useless  to  proceed  with 
the  discussion  of  the  women's  suffrage  amendments  because 
they  could  not  be  incorporated  in  the  bill.  The  promise  of 
the  Government  had  been  to  permit  an  amendment  to  the 
Franchise  Bill  and  to  provide  for  free  discussion  for  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii :  1020-22. 


96  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [302 

same;  since  this  was  now  impossible,  the  Government 
decided  to  withdraw  the  bill  entirely.  In  doing  this,  how- 
ever, Mr.  Asquith  pledged  that  as  soon  as  possible  the 
Government  would  proceed  with  electoral  reform  measures 
including  registration,  redistribution,  and  the  abolition  of 
plural  voting.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  women's  suf- 
frage he  stated  that  while  it  would  be  impossible  for  the 
Government  to  introduce  a  bill,  yet  a  private  members'  bill, 
if  introduced  next  session,  would  be  granted  facilities  by 
the  Government.  If  it  carried  on  the  second  reading  in 
the  House,  he  promised  that  the  Government  would  give 
the  bill  the  same  facilities,  in  regard  to  the  expenditure  of 
Government  time  through  subsequent  sessions,  as  it  would 
give  to  a  Government  measure.1 

Following  this  announcement  there  was  a  debate  that  con- 
tinued for  five  hours  during  which  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  predicament  in  which  it  had  placed  itself,  were 
severely  criticized.  Mr.  Bonar  Law  declared  that  the  posi- 
tion in  which  the  Government  found  itself  was  only  a  result 
of  its  hand-to-mouth  policy  of  rushing  from  one  bill  to 
another  with  only  time  to  think  how  it  could  continue  itself 
in  office  another  year.2  He  professed  not  to  regret  what 
had  happened  from  the  viewpoint  of  women's  suffrage,  as 
a  much  fairer  opportunity  could  be  given  to  discuss  the 
matter  at  the  next  session.  He  did  not  attempt  to  conceal 
his  elation  over  the  advantage  which  his  party  had  gained 
by  the  incident. 

Mr.  Arthur  Henderson  accused  the  leader  of  the  Op- 
position of  being  much  more  interested  in  securing  a  party 
victory  than  he  was  in  seeing  the  House  consider  seriously 
the  demands  of  thousands  of  women  of  the  country.3  He 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii :  1022-30. 
*Ibid.,  1030. 
'Ibid.,  1031-5. 


303]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  i9i2       97 

maintained  that  the  proposal  of  the  Government  to  give  a 
private  member  time  to  introduce  a  women's  suffrage  bill 
at  the  next  session  did  not  redeem  the  pledge  made  by  the 
Prime  Minister.  The  Government  had  pledged  that  if  the 
amendment  were  adopted  by  the  House  at  this  session  then 
the  Government  would  take  charge  of  the  bill  until  it 
became  a  law.  He  held  that  the  pledge  could  only  be 
redeemed  when  the  Government  promised  to  assume  charge 
of  the  private  members'  bill  after  it  had  passed  the  second 
reading.  He  maintained  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  for 
a  private  member  actually  to  steer  the  bill  through  the 
House  in  all  of  its  course  and  follow  it  through  the  Lords 
without  the  assistance  of  the  Government  in  more  ways  than 
simply  giving  time. 

Mr.  Keir  Hardie  assumed  the  same  attitude  towards  the 
position  of  the  Government  as  did  Mr.  Henderson.  He 
maintained  that  in  the  light  of  experience  it  was  absurd  to 
suppose  that  a  women's  suffrage  bill  could  ever  become 
law  without  the  power  and  authority  of  the  Government 
behind  it.1  The  manoeuvres  of  the  Government  had  entirely 
shattered  his  faith  in  the  honesty  of  its  intentions.  He 
unhesitatingly  declared :  "  I  believe  the  promise  now  made 
is  mere  chaff  to  deceive  the  supporters  of  women's  suf- 
frage outside  into  the  belief  that  the  Government  means 
business  when  the  Government  knows  that  is  means  noth- 
ing of  the  sort.  The  decision  of  the  Government  will 
cause  not  only  disappointment  but  will  cause  despair  to 
thousands  of  hearts  outside  the  walls  of  this  House  tonight." 
This  was  in  general  the  attitude  of  the  Labor  members. 

The  suffrage  supporters  of  both  the  Liberal  and  Con- 
servative parties  were  more  generous  in  their  attitude  to- 
wards the  Government.  In  the  main  they  did  not  question 
its  good  faith  but  accepted  the  assurance  which  Mr.  Asquith 

!        1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii:  1062-6. 


98  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [304 

had  given  as  fulfilling  the  promises  of  the  Government. 
The  Conservatives  attempted  to  turn  the  matter  to  party 
advantage  and  cause  the  Government  as  much  embarrass- 
ment as  possible.  Lord  Robert  Cecil  took  occasion  to  rap 
the  Government  for  its  policy  and  the  extraordinary  mess 
in  which  Parliament  found  itself,  due,  as  he  said,  to  the 
operation  of  the  Parliament  Act  and  the  necessity  of  rushing 
bills  through  in  order  to  include  them  under  the  provisions 
of  this  Act  before  the  end  of  Parliament.1  As  far  as  the 
fate  of  women's  suffrage  was  concerned  it  was  his  opinion 
that  the  chances  of  a  private  members'  bill  with  the  promises 
of  facilities  offered  greater  opportunities  for  full  and  free 
discussion  than  the  procedure  which  they  had  attempted  to 
follow  under  the  Government. 

Mr.  Lloyd  George  supported  the  policy  advocated  by 
Mr.  Asquith,  for  he  believed  it  would  offer  a  frank  and 
full  opportunity  for  a  discussion  of  the  issues.  He  heartily 
dissented  from  the  demand  of  the  Laborities  in  their  inn 
sistence  that  the  Government  assume  responsibility  for  the 
bill.  He  pointed  out  that  the  present  experience  had  shown 
the  incompatibility  of  such  a  procedure  with  parliamentary 
methods  and  this  had  demonstrated  the  impossibility  of 
getting  a  vote  upon  the  issue  of  women's  suffrage  when  it 
was  in  connection  with  a  Government  measure.  Mr.  Bal- 
four  was  unkind  enough  to  remind  Mr.  Lloyd  George  that 
this  procedure  had  practically  been  forced  upon  the  House 
by  his  "  torpedoing  "  the  Conciliation  Bill  and  his  machina- 
tions to  have  an  amendment  introduced  to  a  Government 
Reform  Bill. 

It  was  a  much  more  difficult  task,  however,  to  convince 
the  women  who  demanded  the  franchise  that  the  Govern- 
ment had  not  followed  a  deliberate  policy  of  duplicity  in 
order  to  defeat  their  demands.  Mrs.  Pankhurst  at  a  meet- 

i  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  xlvii :  1035-8. 


305]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912       99 

ing  of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  held  the 
same  evening  at  Holborn  Town  Hall  denounced  the 
perfidy  of  the  Government  in  most  vigorous  terms.  The 
Union  blamed  Mr.  Lloyd  George  and  Sir  Edward  Grey 
mostt  severely  for  the  predicament  in  which  they  found 
themselves.  The  suffrage  supporters  believed  that  while 
posing  as  friends  of  women's  suffrage  these  Ministers  had 
betrayed  the  cause  and  had  connived  with  the  Prime 
Minister  in  his  dishonest  policy.  The  Union  refused  to 
accept  the  offer  of  facilities  of  the  Prime  Minister  as  a 
fulfillment  of  his  promise  and  demanded  a  Government 
measure.  If  this  were  refused  Mrs.  Pankhurst  declared 
that  militancy  would  be  the  answer.  In  closing  she  said, 
"One  thing  we  will  regard  as  sacred,  and  that  is  human 
life.  .  .  .  But  while  we  are  not  going  to  injure  human 
beings,  if  it  is  necessary  to  win  the  vote  we  are  going  to  do 
as  much  damage  to  their  property  as  we  can." x  The 
Women's  Freedom)  League,  through  Mrs.  Despard,  an- 
nounced practically  the  same  militant  policy  in  condemna- 
tion of  the  action  of  the  Government.  They  proposed  to 
protest  against  man-made  law  by  breaking  the  law  in  every 
possible  way.  They  made  an  appeal  for  a  great  number  of 
passive  resisters  who  would  refuse  to  pay  the  taxesi 
levied  upon  them. 

The  National  Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies, 
while  not  denouncing  the  policy  of  the  Government  as  one 
of  treachery,  did  refuse  to  accept  the  proposal  of  facilities, 
as  offered  by  Mr.  Asquith,  as  a  fulfillment  of  his  pledge. 
They  demanded  that  a  Government  bill  be  introduced  be- 
cause it  would  be  impossible  for  a  private  members'  bill  to 
weather  all  of  the  parliamentary  procedure  without  Govern- 
ment assistance.  Mrs.  Fawcett  in  announcing  at  Padding- 
ton  Town  Hall  the  policy  to  be  followed  by  the  National 

1  The  Times,  January  28,  1913,  p.  6.  . 


100  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [306 

Union  said  they  would  cease  to  work  for  a  private  members' 
bill  and  they  would  attempt  to  secure  a  women's  suffrage 
Cabinet  which  would  foster  a  women's  suffrage  bill.  Since 
only  the  Labor  party  would  give  them  full-hearted  support 
for  such  a  bill,  they  pledged  their  influence  to  this  party. 
She  emphasized  the  fact  that  there  would  be  no  change  in 
constitutional  tactics.  "  I  think  militancy  has  been  our 
great  enemy.  ...  It  has  done  us  immense  harm  ....  we 
are  claiming  as  other  societies  are  doing,  a  Government 
Bill  for  the  enfranchisement  of  women."  *  The  Women's 
Labor  League  also  appealed  for  determined  political  war- 
fare at  the  ballot  box;  they  repudiated  a  campaign  of 
childish  and  futile  action. 

If  Mr.  Asquith  had  deliberately  planned  to  defeat  the 
women's  suffrage  bills  and  to  divide  the  women's  suffrage 
supporters,  he  could  not  have  done  it  more  successfully 
than  by  his  promise  of  facilities  for  an  amendment  to  the 
Reform  Bill.  In  1911  their  forces  were  united  back  of  the 
Conciliation  Bill.  They  could  not  revert  to  that  position 
because  of  factional  bitterness.  The  Government's  promise 
of  facilities  for  the  amendment  to  the  Reform  Bill  had 
been  used  to  defeat  the  Conciliation  Bill  in  1912;  and  the 
developments  culminating  in  the  Speaker's  ruling  meant 
temporary  disaster  to  the  suffrage  movement.  It  meant 
that  the  constructive  forces  had  to  begin  all  over  again  in 
their  campaign  for  unity.  Mr.  Asquith  no  doubt  did  not 
plan  nor  foresee  the  actual  turn  of  events.  He  himself, 
however,  was  unalterably  opposed  to  women's  suffrage;  he 
did  use  all  of  his  power  to  defeat  the  Conciliation  Bill ;  he 
promised  facilities  for  1912  only  because  of  the  growing 
pressure  of  the  suffrage  advocates.  When  the  Reform  Bill 
was  promised,  he  doubtless  recognized,  along  with  Mr. 
Lloyd  George,  that  it  would  defeat  the  Conciliation  Bill 

1  Manchester  Guardian,  January  29,  1913,  p.  9. 


307]     FRANCHISE  AND  REGISTRATION  BILL  OF  1912 

and  that  it  would  be  more  difficult  for  the  suffrage  forces  to 
unite  upon  an  amendment  to  a  Government  Bill  than  upon 
a  private  members'  bill  unaffected  with  other  issues.  But 
he  used  this  method  to  defeat  the  suffrage  forces  without 
anticipating  the  Speaker's  ruling. 

It  seems  that  this  method  of  attack  upon  the  bill  was 
first  planned  in  connection  with  the  amendment  introduced 
by  Mr.  Pease  on  January  9,  which  had  for  its  purpose  the 
deletion  of  the  occupation  qualification  for  the  franchise.1 
The  members  of  the  City  of  London  declared  that  the  pas- 
sage of  this  amendment  would  deprive  the  business  and 
great  comsmercial  interests  of  the  City  of  any  voice  in  the 
Government  and  would  leave  it  to  the  mercies  of  the  votes 
of  janitors,  caretakers,  and  the  night  population,  which 
would  be  ruinous  to  the  prosperity  and  position  of  the  City. 
Both  Liberal  and  Conservative  members  from  the  City  of 
London  demanded  that  the  City  be  exempt  from1  the  opera- 
tion of  this  amendment.  In  their  attempt  to  preserve  the 
occupation  qualification  Sir  Frederick  Banbury  discovered 
the  possibility  of  the  bill's  being  declared  out  of  order  in 
case  this  amendment  were  adopted.  He  consulted  the 
Speaker  concerning  the  point  and  was  informed  that  it  was 
certainly  a  point  for  argument.  With  this  possibility  in 
mind  the  Conservatives  and  the  anti-suffrage  supporters 
combined  their  efforts  to  defeat  the  bill  on  point  of  pro- 
cedure. This  resulted  in  Bonar  Law's  raising  the  question 
on  January  24,  and  the  subsequent  withdrawal  of  the  bill. 

The  outcome  of  this  whole  procedure  was  nothing  less 
than  disastrous  to  electoral  and  franchise  reform.  The 
Government  had  placed  itself  in  a  position  where  it  would  be 
very  difficult  to  get  any  Reform  Bill  passed  because  it  had 
incurred  the  relentless  opposition  of  the  women's  suffrage 
supporters,  and  their  strength,  at  this  time,  had  to  be 

1  Manchester  Guardian,  January  25,  1913,  p.  9. 


I02  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [308 

reckoned  with.  Because  of  the  opposition  to  piecemeal 
legislation  the  prospects  were  not  very  bright  for  removing 
even  the  more  glaring  evils  in  the  electoral  system.  Until 
there  was  a  change  in  Government  it  appeared  that  if  a 
women's  suffrage  bill  ever  became  law  it  would  have  to  be 
by  means  of  a  private  members'  bill.  The  policy  of  the 
Government  had  so  divided  the  suffrage  forces  that  no 
kind  of  united  action  seemed  to  be  possible.  They  were 
divided  into  the  militant  and  nonmilitant  groups  as  well 
as  into  party  factions. 

The  attempt  to  secure  all  the  electoral  and  franchise  re- 
forms by  one  general  bill  had  resulted  in  miserable  failure. 
After  1912  the  movements  for  these  reforms  again  ran 
along  independent  lines.  The  suffrage  forces  had  to  begin 
to  work  for  unity  upon  a  new  basis.  Their  movement  was 
only  incidentally  connected  with  the  other  proposals  of 
franchise  reform. 


CHAPTER  VI 
ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN  IN  1913  AND  1914 

AFTER  the  withdrawal  of  the  Reform  Bill  the  struggle 
for  the  franchise  for  women  began  to  develop  into  an  im- 
passe from  which  it  was  extricated  only  by  the  European 
War.  The  militants  had  become  so  exasperated  with  the 
dealings  of  the  Government  that  they  now  virtually  declared 
civil  war  upon  society.  They  stopped  short  only  of  taking 
human  life,  and  even  life  was  constantly  placed  in  jeopardy 
in  their  attempts  to  compel  the  Government  to  grant  con- 
cessions. When  the  militant  tactics  were  first  adopted,  they 
were  opposed  in  the  main  by  the  constitutional  societies,  yet 
these  societies  recognized  that  the  militants  were  arousing 
public  interest  and  making  a  certain  contribution  to  the 
movement.  By  1912,  however,  the  constitutionalists  be- 
came openly  antagonistic  and  devoted  as  much  of  their 
energy  to  counteracting  the  work  of  the  militants  as  they  did 
to  attempting  to  convert  the  anti-suffragists. 

There  was  also  the  line  of  party  cleavage.  Taking  the 
advice  of  the  Government,  the  suffrage  supporters  dropped 
a  nonpartisan  Conciliation  Bill  to  attempt  to  amend  a 
partisan  Government  Bill.  This  ended  so  disastrously  that 
the  Liberal  suffrage  forces  became  convinced  that  the  only 
hope  for  success  was  by  a  women's  suffrage  partisan 
measure.  While  they  continued  to  consult  with  the  Con- 
servative suffragists  they  insisted  upon  a  Liberal  Bill.  The 
Nationalists  also  continued  to  view  the  question  from  a 
political  standpoint  and  not  upon  merits ;  thus  the  suffrage 
forces  were  hopelessly  divided  along  partisan  lines.  With 
the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  working  along  these 
309]  103 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [310 

divergent  lines  the  hope  for  success  of  their  cause  began  to 
vanish. 

The  militants  did  not  leave  the  public  in  doubt  very 
long  as  to  the  seriousness  of  the  war  which  they  had 
declared.  Windows  were  broken,  golf  lawns  damaged, 
letter  boxes  opened  and  letters  destroyed,  articles  in 
museums  damaged,  attempts  were  made  to  burn  private 
homes,  public  buildings,  churches  and  cathedrals,  and  bombs 
were  constantly  concealed  in  public  places.  On  February 
19,  1913,  a  bomb  exploded  in  a  house  in  the  course  of 
erection  which  belonged  to  Mr.  Lloyd  George.  The  next 
day  Mrs.  Pankhurst  speaking  at  Cardiff  announced  that  she 
accepted  full  responsibility  for  the  act  and  that  the  authori- 
ties need  look  no  further.1  A  few  days  later  she  was 
arrested  and  charged  under  the  Malicious  Injury  to  Pro- 
perty Act.  When  the  case  came  up  on  April  2,  she  con- 
ducted her  own  defense  and  in  no  way  attempted  to 
escape  responsibility  for  the  act,  but  she  announced  that  if 
sentenced  she  would  go  on  a  hunger  strike  and  would  be 
out  in  a  few  days  to  carry  on  the  struggle.  She  was  sen- 
tenced to  three  years'  penal  servitude.  She  carried  out 
her  threat  and  was  shortly  released  in  a  state  of  exhaus- 
tion as  a  result  of  the  hunger  strike.  As  soon  as  she  re- 
covered she  was  rearrested  and  again  sent  to  prison  under 
the  so-called  "  Cat  and  Mouse  "  Act.2  But  after  sixteen 
months,  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  war  in  August,  1914, 
she  had  served  but  six  weeks  of  her  three  years'  sentence.3 
This  is  only  typical  of  the  more  serious  character  of  the 
militant  policy  which  exasperated  the  public  and  ceased  to 
make  converts  for  the  cause  the  militants  advocated. 

1  The  Times,  February  20,  1913,  p.  6. 

"The  Prisoners  (Temporary  Discharge  for  Ill-Health)  Act  provided 
for  the  rearrest  of  prisoners  who  were  discharged  from  prison  owing 
to  the  adoption  of  the  hunger  strike.  The  purpose  was  to  compel  them 
to  serve  their  entire  sentence. 

'Metcalfe,  op.  cit.,  p.  262. 


3n]  ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN  105 

The  Government  found  it  increasingly  difficult  to  handle 
the  situation,  and  to  deal  with  the  prisoners  when  they 
went  on  hunger  strikes  as  most  of  them  did.  The  practice 
of  forcible  feeding  caused  so  much  public  criticism  that  it 
was  for  the  most  part  abandoned.  Since  the  militants  were 
openly  inciting  people  to  violence,  the  Home  Secretary 
issued  orders  to  the  police  to  prevent  meetings  from  being 
held  by  the  Women's  Social  and  Political  Union  in  Hyde 
Park  and  other  public  places.  This  led  to  many  a  fight  for 
freedom  of  speech.  A  little  later  on  April  30,  the  Head- 
quarters of  the  Union  were  raided  and  the  office  force 
placed  under  arrest.  The  attempt  was  also  made  to  sup- 
press their  publication,  The  Suffragette;  but  in  spite  of  the 
efforts  of  the  police  it  continued  to  appear,  though  somewhat 
irregularly.  The  Government  thus  adopted  a  more  vigor- 
ous policy  than  it  had  previously  pursued,  but  it  cannot  be 
said  that  it  was  more  effective;  the  militants  could  not  be 
deterred  from  their  policy  by  fear. 

In  the  meantime  the  parliamentary  supporters  of  the 
cause  were  attempting  to  frame  a  bill  in  order  to  take 
advantage  of  Mr.  Asquith's  promise  for  facilities.  The 
Liberals  had  appointed  a  drafting  committee  of  which 
Sir  John  Simon  was  chairman.  The  Conservatives  had 
followed  a  similar  plan.  While  the  members  of  the  parties 
were  willing  to  cooperate  and  agreed  that  a  single  bill  was 
the  better  course  to  follow,  they  found  the  degree  of  unity 
necessary  for  the  drafting  o>f  a  joint  bill  rather  difficult  to 
attain.  Since  an  agreed  bill  was  found  impossible  it  was 
drafted  along  the  lines  demanded  by  the  Liberals  and  so 
framed  as  to  permit  amendments  to  be  made  by  the  Con- 
servatives in  the  committee  stage. 

Dickinson's  Women's  Suffrage  Bill  of  1913 
The   bill   was    introduced    for  a   first   reading  by   Mr. 
Dickinson  on  April  3.  and  came  up  for  a  second  reading  on 


I06  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [312 

May  5.1  It  was  based  upon  the  household  franchise.  It 
provided  that  every  woman  who  possessed  the  household 
qualification  or  was  the  wife  of  a  man  who  was  entitled  to* 
registration  in  respect  of  a  household  qualification  would  be 
entitled  to  register  as  a  parliamentary  elector  and  vote  in 
the  constituency  were  she  qualified.2  She  must,  according 
to  the  bill,  have  resided  in  the  constituency  for  twelve 
months  prior  to  July  15.  The  bill  also  limited  the  right  of 
registration  to  women  over  twenty-five  years  of  age.  It 
was  estimated  that  the  bill  would  enfranchise  between 
5,000,000  and  6,000,000  women. 

The  question  of  militancy  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of 
the  speakers.  In  fact,  of  the  thirty-eight  speakers  less 
than  half  a  dozen  omitted  some  reference  to  this  question. 
Mr.  Dickinson  appealed  to  the  members  not  to  be  prej- 
udiced against  the  bill  because  of  the  outrageous  acts  of  a 
small  group.  Mr.  Lief  Jones  while  agreeing  that  the  Gov- 
ernment should  not  yield  to  violence,  pointed  out  that 
practically  every  franchise  reform  which  had  been  granted 
by  either  party  had  been  accompanied  by  some  acts  of 
violence.3  Sir  J.  Compton-Rickett  saw  in  the  militant 
tactics  the  forebodings  of  what  would  happen  if  women 
were  ever  elected  to  the  House.*  If  they  did  not  get  what 
they  wanted  they  would  proceed  to  break  the  rules  and 
regulations  as  they  had  done  outside  of  the  House.  Sir 
Frederick  Low5  and  Mr.  Harold  Cawley,6  both  of  whom 
had  been  suffrage  supporters,  now  announced  that  they 
would  vote  against  the  bill  because  of  the  militant  tactics. 

The  fact  that  the  bill  was  too  extensive  in  its  scope  also 
came  in  for  considerable  objection.  Mr.  J.  M.  Henderson, 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  52:  1704-15. 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1913,  vol.  v,  Bill  75. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  52:  1811-19. 

'Ibid.,  1888-93.  *Ibid.,  1923-7-  'Ibid.,  1952-6. 


313]  ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN 

while  he  favored  a  limited  extension  of  the  franchise,  op- 
posed doubling  the  electorate  at  one  stroke.1  Sir  Charles 
Hunter  assumed  the  same  attitude;  he  had  voted  for  the 
Conciliation  Bill  but  he  opposed  this  bill.2  In  fact  this  was 
the  position  taken  by  most  of  the  Conservative  suffragists. 
There  was  scarcely  an  argument  which  had  been  advanced 
against  women's  suffrage  that  did  not  come  in  for  its 
share  of  discussion  during  the  two  days'  debate.  Mr.  Lynch 
was  the  only  Nationalist  who  took  part  in  the  debate,  and 
he  supported  the  measure.  The  absence  of  Irish  participa- 
tion in  the  discussion  was  due,  according  to  Mr.  Atherly 
Jones,  to  the  fear  lest  they  miight  embarrass  the  Govern- 
ment and  thus  endanger  the  Home  Rule  Bill. 

At  the  close  of  the  second  day's  debate  when  the  division 
was  made,  the  bill  failed  a  second  reading  by  a  vote  of  219 
to  266.  On  the  whole  the  debate  was  of  an  academic 
character;  the  arguments  on  both  sides  were  entirely  thread- 
bare. The  attendance  in  the  House  at  one  time  was  as 
low  as  fourteen.  While  it  had  been  conceded  generally  that 
the  bill  would  be  defeated  yet  the  big  majority  against  the 
measure  came  as  a  great  surprise  to  its  supporters.  The 
Laborites  and  Independent  Nationalists  alone  gave  a  unan- 
imous vote  in  the  affirmative.3  The  Unionists  gave  a  much 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  52 : 1749-52. 

*Ibid.,  1779-80. 

*  The  parties  voted  as  follows: 

For  Against 

Liberals 146  74 

Unionists   28  141 

Nationalists  8  54 

Independent  Nationalists  5 

Labor 34 

221  269 

This  gives  a  total  of  five  more  votes  than  were  reported'  by  the 
tellers  in  the  official  record,  two  in  the  affirmative  and  three  in  the 
negative.  The  Common  Cause,  May  16,  1913,  p.  84. 


I08  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND 

larger  vote  in  the  negative  than  was  anticipated,  a  party 
majority  of  113.  The  Nationalist  vote  again  revealed  the 
fact  that  the  question  was  not  decided  on  its  merits  but  with 
reference  to  the  fortunes  of  the  Home  Rule  Bill. 

The  vote  did  not  represent  a  change  in  belief  in  regard  to 
women's  suffrage  so  much  as  it  revealed  the  fact  that  the 
question  was  not  of  so  fundamental  importance  as  its  sup- 
porters had  believed.  Very  few  members  of  Parliament 
put  this  question  before  party  interest  or  advantage.  As 
long  as  there  were  no  conflicting  motives  they  would  vote  for 
the  bill,  but  under  complicated  circumstances  and  a  highly 
charged  political  atmosphere  they  were  unwilling  to  take 
any  chance  and  either  abstained  from  voting  or  voted  in 
the  opposition.  The  fact  that  it  was  a  Liberal  party  bill 
and  not  an  agreed  measure  caused  a  large  number  of  Con- 
servative suffragists  to  vote  against  the  bill  for  paity 
reasons.  The  outbreak  of  militancy  in  its  new  and  destruc- 
tive form  also  alienated  the  sympathy  of  the  public.  There 
was  deep-seated  resentment  and  a  reaction  against  this  des- 
truction of  property,  especially  when  it  so  often  fell  upon 
those  who  were  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  policy  of 
the  Government.  The  women's  suffrage  societies  were  not 
especially  disappointed  over  the  results  because  it  only  vin- 
dicated the  position  they  had  taken.  All  of  these  societies 
opposed  the  bill,  because  they  were  convinced  that  it  was 
useless  to  attempt  to  secure  action  by  means  of  a  private 
members'  bill.  They  insisted  on  a  Government  measure.1 
They  demanded  that  Mr.  Asquith  redeem  the  pledge  which 
he  made  to  them  in  1911. 

During  the  whole  of  1913  questions  were  repeatedly  put 
in  Parliament,  more  especially  to  Mr.  McKenna,  the  Home 
Secretary,  concerning  the  treatment  of  prisoners,  militant 
methods,  hunger  strikes,  the  amount  of  damage  done  by 

1  The  Common  Cause,  May  2,  1913,  p.  32. 


315]  ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN  109 

militant  outbreaks,  and  the  operation  of  the  "  Cat  and 
Mouse  "  Act.  The  Government  was  also  constantly  under 
fire  for  its  methods  of  dealing  with  the  problem.  These 
questions  and  the  criticism  of  the  policy  of  the  Government 
kept  the  matter  before  the  House  and  caused  continual 
agitation  of  the  subject.  Things  had  in  fact  reached  an 
intolerable  position.  The  Government  and  the  public  looked 
with  abhorrence  upon  the  continuance  of  the  situation  yet 
the  militants  showed  no  signs  of  abatement  of  their  activi- 
ties. From  the  legislative  standpoint  there  was  little  hope 
that  any  bill  could  be  passed  during  the  existing  Parliament. 
The  prospects  did  not  improve  with  the  opening  of  the 
next  session  of  Parliament  In  the  first  place  the  women's 
suffrage  societies  were  united  in  their  demands  that  the 
question  be  taken  up  by  a  Government  Bill  and  refused 
to  put  forth  any  effort  to  support  a  private  members'  bill.1 
On  the  ballot  for  private  members'  bill  no  one,  who  would 
introduce  a  women's  suffrage  bill,  secured  a  place  and  the 
Government  refused  to  grant  facilities  for  a  bill  to  be  in- 
troduced on  its  own  time.  This  blocked  the  possibility  of  a 
women's  suffrage  bill  in  the  House  during  the  session.2 

Militancy  in  1914 

During  the  first  half  of  1914  events  were  rapidly  drifting 
towards  a  crisis.     The  Government  was  in  no  frame  of  mind 

1  The  Vote,  January  16,  1914,  p.  191. 

2  There  was  one  other  recourse  for  parliamentary  discussion  which 
had  not  been  utilized  for  years — that  was  the  House  of  Lords.     The 
very  novelty  of  a  women's  suffrage  bill  in  the  House  of  Lords  added 
interest  and  zest  to  the  proposal.    The  bill,  which  was  introduced  by  the 
Earl  of  Selbourne,  granted  the  parliamentary  franchise  to  women  who 
already  possessed  the  municipal  franchise  and  would,  according  to  his 
estimate,  include  about  1,000,000  women.     (Parliamentary  Debates,  5th 
series,  Lords,  vol.  16:7-17.)     At  the  close  of  the  second  day's  debate 
the  bill  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  60  to  104.    Of  the  eighteen'  speeches 
delivered,  eleven  were  in  favor  of  and  seven  opposed  to  the  bill.     It 
was  evident  the  bill  would  be  defeated,  but  it  served'  to  keep  the  subject 
before  Parliament  and  the  country. 


IIO  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [316 

to  make  concessions.  Parliament,  which  at  the  opening 
session  had  been  in  favor  of  women's  suffrage  by  a  large 
majority,  had  now  defeated  a  women's  suffrage  bill  twice  and 
no  private  member  with  a  place  on  the  ballot  could  be  in- 
duced to  introduce  a  bill.  In  February  Mr.  Asquith  had 
even  refused  to  receive  a  deputation  of  men  from!  Edin- 
burgh, Glasgow,  and  other  Scottish  centers.  He  also  re- 
fused to  meet  representatives  of  the  Northern  Men's! 
Federation  for  Women's  Suffrage.1  The  constitutional 
societies  were  placed  largely  upon  the  defensive  and  were 
under  the  necessity  of  constantly  reassuring  the  public  that 
they  had  no  part  in  nor  sympathy  with  militant  methods. 
In  June  the  Women's  Liberal  Federation  adopted  a  resolu- 
tion condemning  militant  methods  in  the  strongest  terms 
and  calling  upon  the  Government  to  adopt  adequate 
measures  to  prevent  disorders  and  protect  property.2  Two 
days  later  a  similar  statement  in  the  form  of  a  joint  mani- 
festo was  issued  by  the  National  Union  of  Women's  Suf- 
frage Societies  and  the  Conservative  and  Unionist  Women's 
Franchise  Association.3  Even  ninety-four  branches  of  the 
Independent  Labor  Party  passed  resolutions  which  would 
prohibit  militant  suffragettes  from  speaking  from  Socialist 
or  Labor  platforms. 

In  spite  of  the  assurances  of  the  Government  that  it  had 
the  militant  situation  well  in  hand,  the  conditions  during 
1914  continued  to  grow  worse.  The  number  of  crimes  and 
their  seriousness  continued  to  increase.  In  the  first  seven 
months  of  1914 — that  is,  until  the  beginning  of  the  war — 
there  were  a  total  of  141  of  these  outrages  reported  in  the 
papers.*  While  the  Government  was  supposed  to  have 
taken  steps  to  deal  with  the  problem,  only  thirty-five  arrestsi 

1  The  Times,  February  16,  1914,  p.  10. 

*Ibid.,  June  n,  1914,  p.  8.  *Ibid.,  June  13,  1914,  p.  9. 

*Metcalfe,  op.  fit.,  p.  319. 


317]  ATTEMPTS  TO  ENFRANCHISE  WOMEN 

were  made.  These  crimes  ranged  all  the  way  from  window 
smashing  to  the  burning  of  historic  churches  and  cathedrals, 
the  bombing  of  houses  and  public  buildings,  the  destruction 
of  works  of  art,  and  personal  attacks  upon  public  men.  In 
the  earlier  stages  of  militancy  before  violent  methods 
were  adopted,  the  militants  had  succeeded  in  directing 
public  attention  to  their  cause.  They  removed  the  question 
of  women's  suffrage  fromi  the  realm  of  discussion  to  the 
realm  of  politics.  They  were  successful  in  getting  their 
arguments  before  the  public  through  the  press.  But 
after  1913  their  methods  caused  a  very  strong  reaction. 
The  papers  no  longer  published  their  speeches  or  suffrage 
arguments,  but  gave  only  accounts  of  their  crimes  and  their 
violations  of  law.  Thus  the  whole  purpose  of  their  agita- 
tion was  lost  sight  of  and  they  were  looked  upon  as  a  public 
menace;  deportation  was  often  advocated.  This  policy 
alienated  friends,  turned  indifference  into  hostility  and 
transformed  passive  into  active  opposition.  It  resulted  in 
arousing  a  passionate  resentment  and  detestation  of  the 
whole  cause  of  women's  suffrage,  and  the  public  loathed  the 
prospects  of  granting  political  power  to  women  who  had 
committed  these  crimes.  In  the  early  days  of  militancy  the 
crowd  was  usually  in  sympathy  with  the  militants  and 
against  the  police,  but  now  the  situation  was  reversed.  The 
crowd  frequently  used  very  rough  tactics  with  the  militants 
and  the  police  were  often  unrestrained  in  the  use  of  force 
and  even  brutality  in  handling  the  women.  But  hardships, 
rough  handling,  forcible  feeding,  imprisonment,  public 
disdain  had  no  deterring  power  for  these  women.  In  fact, 
some  of  them  were  convinced  that  only  martyrdom  could 
bring  about  the  triumph  of  the  cause  which  they  held 
dearer  than  life  itself;  they  did  not  shrink  even  from  this 
sacrifice.  These  things  exasperated  the  Government  and 
the  public  the  more  because  during  these  months  they  were 
absorbed  in  the  Irish  Home  Rule  Bill  and  the  threatened 


H2  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [318 

Ulster  rebellion.  They  had  neither  time  nor  disposition 
to  deal  with  questions  of  franchise  reform. 

On  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War  in  August,  1914, 
the  militants  immediately  declared  a  truce  for  the  period  of 
hostilities  and  turned  their  organization  and  energy  into 
relief  work  for  the  women,  children,  and  the  wounded.1 
The  constitutional  societies  took  similar  action ;  the  National 
Union  of  Women's  Suffrage  Societies  mobilized  their  forces 
in  nearly  600  societies  for  relief  work,  and  on  September  25, 
announced  the  suspension  of  their  ordinary  political  activi- 
ties. Three  days  after  the  declaration  of  war  the  question 
was  raised  in  the  House  of  Commons  concerning  the  release 
of  all  political  prisoners.  On  August  10,  Mr.  McKenna  an- 
nounced that  the  remainder  of  the  sentences  of  all  persons 
imprisoned  because  of  crimes  in  connection  with  suffrage 
agitation  had  been  remitted  and  that  they  were  to  be  re- 
leased. 

Thus  both  the  suffrage  supporters  and  the  Government 
were  able  to  extricate  themselves  from  the  impasse  into 
which  the  controversy  had  developed.  Things  had  reached 
an  unbearable  position  on  both  sides ;  it  had  become  a  ques- 
tion of  endurance  between  the  militants,  the  Government, 
and  the  public.  With  this  national  emergency  neither  side 
had  to  acknowledge  defeat;  they  were  brought  together  hi 
the  common  cause  for  the  nation.  The  women  were  given 
an  unusual  opportunity  to  display  their  heroism  and  to 
demonstrate  their  contribution  to  the  strength  and  defense 
of  the  state.  Little  did  the  militants  foresee  that  their 
watchword  and  slogan,  "  Deeds,  not  words,"  would  be 
wrought  out  under  such  unexpected  and  tragic  circum- 
stances. For  a  time  the  question  of  women's  suffrage 
entirely  dropped  from  public  discussion  or  consideration. 
The  whole  attention  of  the  nation  was  diverted  from 
domestic  controversies  to  the  problem  ofrnational  existence. 

1  The  Vote,  August  14,  1914,  p.  278. 


CHAPTER  VII 
ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTIN&  IN  1913  AND 

THE  attempt  of  the  Government  to  deal  with  all  the 
franchise  and  registration  questions  in  the  Reform  Bill  of 
1912  had  resulted  in  the  failure  of  the  bill  and  embarrass- 
ment to  the  Government.  This  placed  the  Government,  in 
relation  to  franchise  reform,  in.  a  difficult  position.  If  it 
introduced  another  general  reform  bill  without  including 
women's  suffrage  it  feared  the  opposition  of  the  members 
of  the  Labor  party  together  with  a  large  numiber  of  other 
women's  suffrage  supporters  as  well  as  the  combined  op- 
position of  the  women's  suffrage  societies.  These,  to- 
gether with  the  Conservatives,  presented  an  opposition  which 
was  entirely  too  formidable.  The  Government,  therefore, 
adopted  the  policy  of  dealing  with  the  questions  included 
in  the  Reform  Bill  by  piecemeal.  It  hoped  to  obtain  its 
most  cherished  reformfe  by  this  means  and  thus  avoid  the 
question  of  women's  suffrage.1 

1  At  one-  time  there  was  the  possibility  that  the  Government  might 
assume  the  responsibility  for  the  Baker  Bill.  This  was  introduced  in 
February,  1912,  by  !Mr.  Harold  Baker  and  had  for  its  sole  purpose 
the  abolition  of  plural  voting.  Parliamentary  Papers,  1912,  vol.  v,  Bill  i. 
While  this  was  not  a  Government  Bill  Mr.  Baker  had  had  the  assistance 
of  the  'Solicitor-General  in  drafting  the  measure.  The  Government 
was  interested  in  keeping  this  bill  alive  so  that  in  case  the  Reform 
Bill  was  not  passed,  it  could  then  make  this  a  Government  measure 
and  thus  abolish  plural  voting  by  a  single  act.  But  so  disastrous  was 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Reform  Bill  that  the  Government  dared  not 
immediately  sponsor  this  measure  and  it  never  came  up  again  al- 
though it  passed  a  second  reading  on  March  i,  1912. 

319]  "3 


II4  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [320 

Plural  Voting  Bill  of  1913 

Following  out  this  policy  of  the  Government.  Mr.  Pease, 
author  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1912,  on  April  8,  1913,  asked 
permission  to  introduce  a  bill  dealing  with  plural  voting.1 
The  bill  was  very  short,  dealing  with  only  the  one  subject. 
It  provided  simply  that  at  a  general  parliamentary  election 
an  elector  who  was  registered  in  more  than  one  constituency 
could  not  vote  in  more  than  one  of  the  constituencies  in  which 
he  was  registered.  *  This  prohibited  plural  voting  only  in 
the  general  elections.  In  by-elections  an  elector  could  vote 
in  any  constituency  in  which  he  was  registered.  The  bill 
included  universities  within  the  meaning  of  constituencies. 
The  penalty  imposed  for  a  violation  of  the  statute  was  a 
maximum  fine  of  £200  or  a  maximum  period  of  one  year's 
imprisonment  as  well  as  incapacitation  from  holding  any 
judicial  or  public  office  or  voting  in  any  election  for  a  period 
of  seven  years.  Mr.  Pease  estimated  that  the  bill  would 
eliminate  something  like  525,000  plural  voters  at  the  general 
election. 

The  familiar  arguments  advanced  by  the  Opposition 
against  the  bill  were  that  it  dealt  only  with  one  anomaly  which 
was  for  party  advantage  and  that  it  left  untouched  the  far 
greater  evil  of  redistribution.  The  Unionist,  in  the  main, 
defended  the  plural  voter  because  of  the  stake  which  the 
property  holder  had  in  the  locality.  Some  admitted 
that  the  plural  voter  was,  to  an  extent,  an  anomaly, 
though  not  necessarily  an  evil.  They  were  not  alone  in 
their  opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  Government.  Mr. 
Snowden  speaking  as  a  member  of  the  Labor  party  assured 
the  Government  that  he  would  oppose  the  bill  at  every  stage 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  favored  the  abolition  of  plural 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  voL  51:  1015. 
1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1913,  vol.  v,  Bill  240. 


32 1  ]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING          115 

voting.  He  resented  the  fact  that  the  Government  had 
postponed  to  an  indefinite  day  the  question  of  an  effective 
scheme  of  electoral  reform  and  from  the  wreckage  of  the 
Reform!  Bill  had  selected  one  item  which  from  the  point  of 
importance  and  urgency  was  the  least  important.  "  I 
shall,"  said  he,  "  oppose  the  bill,  because  I  believe  it  will,  if 
passed,  indefinitely  postpone  a  more  comprehensive  scheme, 
and  I  shall  oppose  it  most  of  all  because  I  believe  it  is  a 
deliberate  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to  evade 
the  very  definite  promise  they  have  given  to  the  women  of 
the  country  in  regard  to  women's  suffrage."  * 

The  Government  defended  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  a  short  measure  which  dealt  with  a  single  anomaly,  and 
that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Governrnent  to  bring  in  al 
general  reform  bill  which  would  deal  with  redistribution  be- 
fore the  next  general  election.  It,  however,  refused  to  add 
a  clause  to  the  bill  which  would  make  it  inoperative  until  a 
redistribution  bill  was  passed.  The  bill  passed  the  second 
reading  by  a  vote  of  314  to  227. 

The  committee  stage  occupied  five  days,  one  of  which  was 
an  all-night  session.  The  chief  amendments  offered  at- 
tempted to  limit  the  scope  of  the  bill.  The  most  important 
of  these  provided  that  the  scope  of  the  bill  be  limited  to 
those  registered  in  respect  of  ownership;  to  exempt  the 
university  constituencies  from  the  provisions  of  the  bill ;  to 
exempt  the  City  of  London  from  its  scope;  to  exempt  all 
plural  voters  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  from  its 
operation ;  to  postpone  the  operation  of  the  bill  till  January 
i,  1916;  and  to  exclude  Ireland  from  the  scope  of  the 
measure.  The  Governmient  was  unyielding  in  its  position 
and  was  strong  enough  to  prevent  any  of  the  amendments 
from  being  adopted.  The  bill  passed  a  third  reading  by  al 
vote  of  293  to  222. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  52:  1249. 


H6  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [322 

The  bill  was  read  a  first  time  in  the  House  of  Lords  with- 
out discussion  and  came  up  for  a  second  reading  on  July  24. 
There  were  again  marshalled  in  review  the  chief  Unionist 
arguments  against  the  abolition  of  the  plural  voter.  The 
defeat  of  the  bill  by  the  House  of  Lords  was  inevitable; 
the  debate  was  not  very  animated  and  little  interest 
was  shown  on  either  side.  In  fact  when  the  bill  came 
up  for  discussion  there  were  only  fourteen  supporters  of 
the  Government  present.  The  bill  was  disposed  of  by  the 
Lords  in  one  sitting,  being  defeated  by  a  vote  of  42  ayes  to 
1 66  noes.  This  was  not  a  final  disposition  of  the  bill; 
it  was  reintroduced  the  next  session  according  to  the  pro- 
vision of  the  Parliament  Act  of  1911.  The  debate  occa- 
sioned no  interest  outside  of  Parliament  and  caused  no 
general  public  discussion.  In  fact  there  were  no  editorial 
comments  on  the  subject  when  it  passed  a  third  reading  in 
the  House;  The  Times  did  not  even  mention  the  matter 
when  it  was  defeated  by  the  Lords  on  a  second  reading. 

London  Election  Bill  of  1913 

At  the  same  time  that  the  plural  voting  bill  was  before 
Parliament,  another  bill  was  introduced  which  had  for  its 
chief  object  the  consolidation  of  London  into  a  single 
parliamentary  constituency,  thus  abolishing  plural  voting  in 
this  district.  The  measure  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Glanville 
on  May  2,  as  a  private  member's  bill.1  It  was  essentially  the 
same  as  the  bill  introduced  by  the  Government  in  1909  and 
defeated  by  the  Lords.  It  adopted  the  principle  of  suc- 
cessive occupation  for  the  whole  of  the  borough  of  London 
which  was  made  one  parliamentary  constituency  instead 
of  the  twenty-eight  into  which  the  metropolis  was  divided.2 
The  bill  also  provided  that  the  clerk  of  the  London  County 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  52: 1547. 
1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1913,  vol.  iv,  Bill  6. 


323]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING          117 

Council  should  be  the  registration  authority  for  the  whole 
of  the  constituency  which  would  make  for  much  greater 
uniformity  in  registration. 

This  bill  was  characterized  by  the  Opposition  as  "  another 
example  of  the  wire  puller's  art."  Besides  objecting  to  the 
abolition  of  the  plural  voter  in  London  they  also  criticised 
the  Government  severely  for  its  duplication  of  bills  upon  the 
same  subject  and  the  consequent  waste  of  parliamentary 
time.  This  was  not  a  Government  bill,  but  the  criticism 
seemed  to  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  within  a  week  three 
bills  had  been  introduced  dealing  with  electoral  matters. 
All  the  points  touched  upon  in  this  bill  were  covered  by 
bills  already  before  Parliament.  On  division  the  bill  passed 
a  second  reading  by  a  vote  of  193  to  103  and  was  referred  to 
a  standing  committee.  The  bill  was  reported  back  to  the 
House  without  amendment  but  it  never  came  up  again.1 

Plural  Voting  Bill  of  1914 

The  Plural  Voting  Bill  which  was  defeated  by  the  Lords 
in  1913  was  reintroduced  in  1914  and  came  up  for  second 
reading  on  April  27. 2  The  Conservatives  laid  special  emr 
phasis  upon  the  fact  that  the  bill  was  not  accompanied  by 
a  redistribution  .measure.  In  answer  to  this  charge  Mr. 
Pease,  on  behalf  of  the  Government,  offered  to  confer  with 
the  Opposition  as  .to  a  basis  for  a  redistribution  bill.  This 
overture  was  refused  by  Mr.  Pretyman  on  the  ground  that 
they  could  not  enter  into  any  such  agreement  until  they 
knew  what  the  Government  proposed  to  do  with  the  Home 

1  During  the  session  bills  were  introduced]  to  shorten  the  registration 
period,  to  enable  absent  voters  to  vote  at  parliamentary  elections,  to 
provide  for  redistribution  and  to  enable  soldiers  and  sailors  on  duty  and 
absent  from  their  parliamentary  constituencies  to  cast  their  votes  at 
parliamentary  elections.  None  of  these  bills  received  more  than  a  first 
reading. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  61 :  13/9. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [324 

Rule  Bill,  especially  since  redistribution  chiefly  affected 
Ireland. l  Lord  Hugh  Cecil  did  not  let  the  opportunity  go 
by  without  bringing*  up  the  matter  of  women's  suffrage  and 
attacking  the  Government  for  its  dealing  with  the  question. 

During  the  third  reading,  on  both  sides  of  the  House, 
the  attitude  toward  the  bill  was  based  entirely  upon  party 
considerations.  The  Conservatives  defended  the  plural 
voter  upon  a  variety  of  grounds,  all  of  which  came  back  to 
the  distrust  and  fear  of  democracy  and  the  protection  of 
property.  Realizing  that  they  would  be  outvoted,  they 
attempted  to  use  every  argument  possible  to  cause  dissension 
among  the  supporters  of  the  Government.  They  were 
especially  artful  in  the  use  of  the  Irish  question  for  this 
purpose. 

The  bill  came  up  for  a  second  reading  in  the  House  of 
Lords  on  July  15.  The  debate  recapitulated  (the  old  argu- 
ments on  the  question  and  occupied  only  a  few  hours,  for 
it  was  evident  that  the  bill  would  be  defeated  and  no  amount 
of  discussion  would  change  any  votes.  Little  interest 
was  shown  in  the  procedure.  The  Lords  lived  up  to 
their  reputation  and  rejected  the  bill,  for  a  second  time, 
by  the  vote  of  49  to  1 19.  As  in  the  previous  year  the  bill 
attracted  no  popular  attention  and  was  discussed  and 
defeated  with  practically  no  comment  in  the  press,  so  con- 
cerned was  the  public  over  the  Irish  situation." 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  $th  series,  vol.  ii :    vol.  63 :  878. 

'Several  other  bills  dealing  with  minor  phases  of  electoral  machinery 
and  methods  were  introduced  during  the  session  in  1914.  A  bill  re- 
quiring that  all  contested  elections,  at  a  general  election,  be  held  on  the 
same  day,  was  accorded  a  second  reading  and  came  up  to  the  report 
stage  but  got  no  farther  than  this.  Bills  were  also  introduced  which 
granted  the  right  of  franchise  to  absent  voters,  to  shorten  the  period 
of  registration,  to  provide  for  preferential  voting  and  alternative 
voting,  but  none  of  these  were  accorded  more  than  a  second  reading. 
A  resolution  introduced  by  Mr.  Lyell  favoring  alternative  voting  in 
parliamentary  elections  was  passed  by  a  majority  vote. 


325]        ATTEMPTS  TO  ABOLISH  PLURAL  VOTING          119 

In  1914  the  prospects  were  that  the  Plural  Voting  Bill 
would  be  pushed  through  the  next  session  of  Parliament 
and  become  law  under  the  provisions  of  the  Parliament  Act 
of  1911.  The  Liberals  had  been,  up  to  the  beginning  of 
the  war,  in  power  for  eight  years  and  had  not  passed  a 
single  important  measure  in  relation  to  franchise  and 
electoral  matters.  The  bills  dealing  with  plural  voting  had 
all  been  defeated  by  the  House  of  Lords  and  the  one 
general  franchise  reform  bill  had  been  withdrawn  by  the 
Government.  With  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  discus- 
sion of  franchise  and  electoral  questions  was  dropped,  but  it 
came  up  again  rather  unexpectedly  in  connection  with  the 
franchise  rights  of  the  military  and  naval  forces.  This 
paved  the  way  for  general  legislation  upon  the  whole  sub- 
ject. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EMERGENCY  PARLIAMENTARY  AND  REGISTRATION 
LEGISLATION 

WITH  the  beginning  of  the  war  a  general  political  truce 
was  entered  into.  The  Government  agreed  not  to  foster 
any  bill  of  a  controversial  nature  but  to  confine  its  activities 
entirely  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war  and  matters  that 
related  thereto.  It  was  the  general  feeling  in  both 
parties  that  it  would  not  be  to  the  best  interest  of  the 
Empire  to  have  a  general  election  during  the  war.  In  July, 
1915,  a  bill  was  passed  which  postponed  all  municipal 
and  local  elections  for  the  year.1  It  also  provided  that 
all  registration  should  cease  on  July  31,  1915,  which 
meant  that  the  old  register  of  1914  continued  in  force 
although  its  duration  was  limited  to  December  31,  I9i6.2 

Parliament  and  Registration  Act  of  1916 

On  January  27,  1916,  four  days  before  the  life  of  the 
existing  Parliament  would  have  legally  terminated,  the 
Parliament  and  Registration  Bill  received  the  Royal  assent. 
This  law  extended  the  life  of  Parliament  for  eight  months. 
It  also  provided  that  the  bills  under  the  Parliament  Act  of 
1911  would  not  be  lost  simply  because  they  were  not 
passed  at  tthe  succeeding  session  of  Parliament.  This  kept 
alive  the  Plural  Voting  Bill  and  permiitted  it  to  be  intro- 
duced any  time  during  the  continuance  of  the  existing 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  73 :  1833-72 ;  2457. 
*  Parliamentary  Papers,  1914-1916,  vol.  i,  Bill  138. 

120  [326 


PARLIAMENTARY  LEGISLATION 

Parliament.  The  law  of  the  previous  July  was  also 
amended  so  that  the  register  was  to  continue  in  force  until 
Parliament  provided  a  substitute  and  no  steps  were  to  be 
taken  to  provide  a  register  until  directions  were  given  by 
Parliament.  This  act  virtually  suspended  the  whole  regis- 
tration machinery. 

The  Parliament  and  Registration  Act  obviously  did  not 
settle  any  question  permanently;  it  was  only  a  temporary 
measure.  Very  soon  after  its  passage  the  members  of 
Parliament  began  to  ask  the  Prime  Minister  what  policy 
the  Government  proposed  to  follow  in  regard  to  registra- 
tion, in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  men  who  were  disqualified 
because  of  being  absent  in  the  army,  navy,  and  various  kinds 
of  war  services,  and  concerning  the  next  general  election  and 
the  duration  of  the  existing  Parliament.  While  there  was 
very  little  demand  for  an  election  during  the  war,  the 
question  of  the  register  did  present  an  immediate  problem. 
A  cabinet  crisis  might  arise  at  any  time  which  would  make 
an  election  inevitable  even  during  the  war.  If  an  election 
occurred  it  would  have  to  be  held  under  the  register  of 
1914  which,  because  of  changes  in  residence  and  absence 
from  constituencies  in  war  work,  included  only  about  50 
per  cent  of  the  electors.  This  presented  not  a  simple  but 
a  very  complex  problem  and  opened  up  the  whole  franchise 
question  again.  If  a  new  register  were  to  be  prepared,  the 
old  limitations  based  as  they  were  so  largely  upon  occupancy, 
would  have  to  be  changed  so  as  to  bring  the  soldiers,  sailors, 
and  munition  workers,  who  were  absent  from  home,  on  the 
register,  and  also  to  provide  machinery  which  would  be 
effective  in  enabling  them  to  vote.  Such  changes  would 
virtually  amount  to  adult  manhood  suffrage  which  would 
be  an  extension  of  the  franchise.  Thus  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  franchise  qualifications  was  involved.  With  these 
questions  under  consideration  by  the  Government,  the  advo- 


122  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [328 

cates  of  women's  suffrage,  with  the  new  argument  of  the 
splendid  national  service  performed  by  women  during  the 
war,  came  forward  and  insisted  that  if  all  these  questions 
came  within  the  scope  of  a  registration  scheme,  so  must 
also  the  statutory  limitations  as  to  sex.  They  demanded 
ithat  if  the  sex  disqualification  could  not  be  removed  by  a 
registration  bill,  then  the  Government  must  deal  with  the 
whole  question  by  means  of  a  franchise  bill. 

Select  Committee  of  1916 

On  July  12,  1916,  Mr.  Asquith  announced  thai  since  the 
Government  had  been  unable  to  agree  upon  an  uncontrover- 
sial  solution  of  the  franchise  and  registration  problems,  it 
had  decided  to  ask  the  House  to  set  up  at  once  a  Select 
Committee  which  would  deal  with  all  of  these  matters.1  It 
was  the  intention  of  the  Government  that  this  Select  Com- 
mittee should  decide ;  first,  whether  a  new  register  should  be 
made ;  second,  whether  all  men  in  the  army  and  navy  should 
be  placed  on  a  new  register;  third,  how  men  m  service  were 
to  cast  their  votes  while  on  duty;  fourth,  how  munition 
workers  who  had  been  disqualified  were  to  be  placed  on  the 
register;  fifth,  whether  women  should  'be  placed  on  the 
register ;  and  finally,  whether  there  should  be  a  general  elec- 
tion during  the  war.  Mr.  Herbert  Samuel.  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  Home  Department,  who  introduced  the  motion, 
was  rather  half-hearted  in  his  support  of  this  method  of 
procedure  and  he  was  doubtful  whether  it  would  be  able  to 
accomplish  anything.2 

He  was  not  left  in  doubt  very  long  as  to  the  attitude 
of  the  House  towards  the  proposition.  Sir  Edward  Carson 
immediately  launched  a  vigorous  attack  upon  the  policy 
of  the  Government.3  He  held  up  to  ridicule  the  idea 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  84:  343-6. 
1039-45.  *Ibid.,  1045-52. 


329]  PARLIAMENTARY  LEGISLATION  123 

that  the  Government  should  turn  over  this  task,  which 
it  could  not  agree  upon,  to  a  committee.  He  accused  the 
Government  of  destroying  the  register  of  1915  when  it  was 
in  the  process  of  preparation  so  they  could  further  post- 
pone a  general  election.  "  This  committee,"  said  he,  "  will 
lead  to  nothing.  This  committee  is  a  farce.  The  Hon. 
Gentleman  has  proposed  it  as  a  farce."  All  of  the  eight 
speakers  who  followed  Mr.  Samuel  in  the  debate  criticised 
the  policy  of  the  Government.  It  was  the  consensus  of 
opinion  that  all  of  these  problems  ought  to  be  settled  by 
the  Government  and  not  by  a  committee  which  had  no 
power  and  whose  decision  would  in  no  way  be  'binding. 

Mr.  McNeil  I,  one  of  the  members  named  on  the  Com- 
mittee, declined  to  serve  because  of  the  discouraging  otitlook 
presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  and  the  opposition  to  the 
plan  of  the  Government  which  developed.  Mr.  Asquith, 
evidently  having  been  informed  as  to  how  the  debate  was 
going,  hastily  appeared  in  the  House  while  Mr.  McNeill 
was  speaking  and  after  attempting  to  explain  the  position  of 
the  Government,  said  he  did  not  wash  to  press  the  matter.1 
He  announced  that  the  Government  would  make  a  proposi- 
tion of  its  own  and  asked  leave  to  withdraw  the  motion. 
Such  a  procedure  as  this  in  normal  times  might  easily  have 
proved  fatal  to  the  Government ;  tinder  the  circumstances  it 
was  universally  taken  as  an  evidence  of  the  inability  of  the 
Government  to  deal  with  difficult  problems — one  among 
many  other  signs  of  its  weakness. 

The  Government  was  now  compelled  to  find  a  way  out  of 
the  difficulty,  and  it  had  to  face  the  matter  with  impaired 
prestige.  The  increasing  volume  of  criticism  against  the 
incapacity  of  the  Government  made  the  need  for  a  new 
register  all  the  more  urgent.  While  there  were  compara- 
tively few  who  demanded  an  election  at  this  time,  there 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  84 : 1073-5. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [330 

were  a  great  many  who  were  apprehensive  lest  a  crisis  might 
arise  at  any  time  which  would  necessitate  a  general  election. 
With  the  approach  of  the  termination  of  the  life  of  Parlia- 
ment in  September  some  definite  policy  and  action  were 
necessary. 

The  Unionist  War  Committee  took  advantage  of  this 
situation  and  Sir  E.  Carson  served  notice  upon  Mr. 
Asquith  that  they  would  oppose  any  extension  of  the  life 
of  Parliament  which  was  not  accompanied  by  a  bill  to  make 
a  new  register.1  The  Unionists  were  supported  in  this  action 
by  the  Liberal  War  Committee.  They  also  demanded  that 
this  register  include  soldiers  and  sailors  who  were  serving 
or  had  served  with  the  forces  during  the  war.  This  in- 
volved, of  course,  changing  the  basis  of  the  registration  and 
of  the  franchise  qualifications. 

The  women's  suffrage  societies  were  keenly  alive  to  the 
possibilities  of  the  situation.  On  August  4  they  sent  a 
statement  to  Mr.  Asquith  in  which  they  made  their  position 
very  clear  in  regard  to  registration  reforms.  They  stated 
that  if  the  registration  reforms  were  limited  to  insuring  that 
men  who  were  already  on  the  parliamentary  register  should 
not  be  disqualified  by  reason  of  absence  on  war  work,  then 
they  would  not  oppose  'such  legislation.  But  if  the  Govern- 
ment proposed  to  make  changes  which  would  establish  a 
new  voting  qualification  or  shorten  the  period  of  residence 
so  as  to  put  new  names  on  the  register,  then  this  would  in- 
volve the  question  of  the  rights  of  women  and  they  must 
be  included.2  This  was  signed  on  behalf  of  thirteen 
women's  organizations.  They  were  supported  in  this  posi- 
tion by  Lord  Robert  Cecil,  and  the  great  body  of  women's 
suffrage  advocates.3 

1  The  Times,  August  u,  1916,  p.  9. 

*The  Common  Cause,  August  n,  1916,  p.  227. 

"Manchester  Guardian,  August  7,  1916,  p.  4. 


33 1  ]  PARLIAMENTARY  LEGISLATION  12$ 

Special  Register  Bill 

The  Government  finally  decided  to  deal  with  the  ques- 
tions in  two  separate  bills.1  The  first  of  these,  the  Parlia- 
ment and  Local  Election  Bill,  provided  for  the  extension  of 
Parliament  for  seven  more  months,  that  is,  to  April  30, 
1917.  This  bill  was  hurried  through  Parliament,  met  with 
very  little  opposition,  and  received  the  Royal  assent  on 
August  23.  ~  The  second  of  these  bills,  the  Special  Register 
Bill,  was  -introduced  on  August  i6.5  It  provided  for  a  new 
register  which  was  to  go  into  effect  May  31,  1917.  In 
order  to  make  this  new  register  as  nearly  up  to  date  as 
possible,  the  qualifying  period  was  postponed  from  July  15 
to  November  i.  In  order  to  deal  with  the  questions  of 
disqualifications  and  yet  not  introduce  the  women's  suf- 
frage question,  the  bill  provided  that  all  those  who  were 
otherwise  qualified  but  who  had  left  their  homes  to  engage 
in  any  kind  of  war  work  would  not  be  disqualified  but  would 
be  placed  on  the  register,  whether  or  not  they  had  retained 
their  qualifying  premises.  It  also  placed  on  the  register  all 
those  who  were  interrupted  in  the  course  of  their  qualifica- 
tion by  entrance  into  national  service.  No  attempt  was 
made  generally  to  enable  soldiers  and  sailors  or  those  away 
from  home  to  cast  their  votes  or  to  shorten  the  period  of 
qualification. 

The  Government  justified  this  policy  on  the  ground  that 
any  other  course  was  fraught  with  so  many  political  prob- 
lems of  a  controversial  nature  that  it  was  impossible  to 
deal  with  them  during  the  existing  crisis.  If  the  soldiers 
and  sailors  were  placed  on  the  register,  that  raised  the 
practical  and  military  question  of  enabling  them  actually  to 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  85 :  1447-58. 
flbid.,  2701. 
*lbid.,  1650;  1891. 


I26  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [332 

cast  their  votes.  But  the  real  problem  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  Government  was  that  this  could  not  be  accomplished 
without  including  the  question  of  women's  suffrage  which 
opened  up  again  the  old  controversy.  The  Government 
decided,  therefore,  to  introduce  only  a  temporary  measure, 
dealing  with  the  question  of  registration  and  not  attempting 
to  alter  the  franchise  qualifications. 

As  was  expected  this  proposal  encountered  very  strong 
opposition.  The  attack  on  the  policy  of  the  Government 
was  led  by  Sir  E.  Carson  because  the  bill  did  not  include 
provision  for  the  enfranchisement  of  soldiers  and  sailors 
and  machinery  which  would  enable  those  at  the  front  to  cast 
their  votes.1  This  bill  proved  almost  as  humiliating  to  the 
Government  as  its  proposal  for  a  Select  Committee.  Of  the 
fourteen  speeches  made  eleven  were  opposed  to  the  bill;  no 
one  spoke  in  favor  of  the  bill  except  members  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Even  Mr.  Long,  the  author  of  the  bill,  attempted  to 
justify  it  on  the  ground  that  under  the  circumstances  it  was 
the  best  the  Government  could  do  in  a  makeshift  fashion 
without  taking  up  the  whole  franchise  question. 

During  the  debate  two  possibilities  were  suggested,  which 
prevented  open  revolt  against  the  policy  of  the  Government. 
The  first  was  the  possibility  of  amending  the  bill,  by  means 
of  instructions,  before  going  into  the  committee,  so  as  to 
include  the  enfranchisement  of  soldiers  and  sailors.  The 
other  was  the  possibility  of  amending  the  Ballot  Act  so  as 
to  enable  soldiers  and  sailors,  who  were  absent  from  their 
constituencies,  to  vote.  When  the  bill  came  up  again  after 
adjournment  on  November  I,  the  Speaker  ruled  that  any 
such  instructions  to  include  soldiers  and  sailors  within  the 
scope  of  the  bill  would  constitute  a  new  bill.  This  deprived 
the  measure  of  its  last  friend  and  it  was  later  withdrawn  by 
the  Government. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  85: 1891-8. 


333]  PARLIAMENTARY  LEGISLATION 

Thus  another  attempt  to  deal  with  the  registration  ques- 
tion ended  in  humiliation  for  the  Government  and  utter 
failure  to  obtain  a  new  register.  Yet  from  the  discussion! 
of  this  bill  came  a  suggestion  which  was  destined  to  lead  to 
a  happy  solution  of  the  franchise  and  registration  difficulty. 


CHAPTER  IX 
REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918 

DURING  the  debate  on  the  Special  Register  Bill  on 
August  1 6,  when  the  Government  was  in  vain  attempting 
to  provide  even  a  temporary  register,  a  suggestion  was 
made  which  was  destined  to  make  a  compromise  possible 
and  to  initiate  the  most  far-reaching  reform  in  the  English 
franchise  system.  Mr.  Asquith  was  hard  pressed  in  at- 
tempting to  defend  the  policy  of  the  Government  and  in 
the  course  of  his  speech  appealed  to  the  House  to  undertake 
during  the  war  a  reform  by  general  agreement  which 
would  solve  these  problems.  "  Let  us  by  all  means  use  the 
time — those  of  us  who  are  not  absolutely  absorbed  in  the 
conduct  of  the  war — in  those  months  to  see  if  we  cannot 
work  out  by  general  agreement  some  scheme  under  which, 
both  as  regards  the  electorate  and  the  distribution  of 
electoral  power,  a  Parliament  can  be  created  at  the  end  of 
the  war  capable  and  adequate  for  discharging  these  tasks 
and  commanding  the  confidence  of  the  country." l  A  little 
later  in  the  debate  Mr.  Long,  the  author  of  the  bill,  pleaded 
with  the  members  of  the  House  not  to  find  fault  with  the 
bill  before  them,  but  seriously  to  set  about  to  find  a  solu- 
tion of  the  whole  situation.  In  order  to  do  this  he  made 
a  definite  suggestion  of  procedure.  "  I  myself  believe 
that  if  we  agreed  among  ourselves  ....  to  set  up  ....  a  rep- 
resentative Conference,  not  only  of  parties,  but  of  groups, 
a  Conference  which  would  really  represent  opinion  on  these 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  85 : 1906. 
128  [334 


335]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8       129 

three  subjects:  electoral  reform,  revision  of  your  electoral 
power  when  you  have  got  it,  and  registration,  I  believe  .... 
that  such  a  Conference  of  earnest  »men,  holding  strong 
views,  bitterly  opposed  to  each  other,  if  they  were  face  to- 
face  with  these  difficulties,  when  we  are  longing  with  a 
great  longing  to  see  something  of  a  better  prospect  for  our 
country  in  the  future,  would  produce  an  agreed  system  for 
all  three  questions  upon  which  the  great  mass  of  opinion 
of  the  people  of  this  country  could  come  together."1  He 
further  suggested  that  such  a  Conference  begin  its  delibera- 
tion during  the  recess  of  Parliament. 

Conference  on  Electoral  Reform 

This  suggestion  caused  immediately  a  great  deal  of  dis- 
cussion in  political  circles  and  was  received  on  all  sides 
with  favor.  It  was  looked  upon  as  a  possible  solution  for 
the  vexing  problems.  Shortly  afterwards  Mr.  Asquith  re- 
quested the  Speaker,  Mr.  James  W.  Lowther,  to  convene 
such  a  Conference  and  preside  over  its  deliberations.  This 
was  a  happy  choice  and  augured  much  for  the  success  of 
the  undertaking.  Invitations  to  members  were  issued  early 
in  October  and  the  Conference  held  its  first  meeting  on 
October  12,  1916. 

Great  care  was  taken  in  selecting  the  personnel  of  the 
Conference  so  that  all  parties,  groups,  and  shades  of  opinion 
would  be  properly  represented.  There  were  thirty-two 
miembers,  five  from  the  Lords,  three  Unionists  and  two 
Liberals,  and  twenty-seven  from  the  House.  Of  the  latter 
there  were  eleven  Unionists,  ten  Liberals,  three  National- 
ists, and  three  representatives  from  the  Labor  party. 
From  the  standpoint  of  women's  suffrage  both  sides  were 
represented  by  staunch  supporters.  There  were  fifteen  suf- 
fragists, eleven  decided  anti-suffragists,  two  so-called  "  wob- 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  85 : 1949-50. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [336 

biers,"  and  four  Irish  members,  who  from)  their  records 
were  quite  incalculable.1  There  were  representatives  who 
believed  in  the  radical  doctrine  of  adult  suffrage,  of  one  man, 
one  vote.  They  were  counterbalanced  by  those  who  mis- 
trusted the  masses  and  wanted  the  rights  of  property 
adequately  guarded  by  the  plural  and  university  vote. 

According  to  the  terms  of  reference,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Bonar  Law  to  the  House  on  October  10,  the  Conference 
was,  "  To  examine  and,  if  possible,  submit  agreed  resolu- 
tions on  the  following  matters : 

"  (a)   Reform  of  the  Franchise. 
"  (b)   Basis  for  the  Redistribution  of  Seats. 
"  (c)  Reform   of    the   system    of    the    Registration    of 

Electors. 
"  (d)  Method  of  elections  and  the  manner  in  which  the 

costs  of  elections  should  be  borne."  2 

At  the  request  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  when  he  became 
Prime  Minister  in  Decemjber,  1916,  the  Conference  con- 
tinued its  work.  The  final  report  was  made  to  the  Prime 
Minister  on  January  27,  1917.  This  report  was  a  remark- 
able document,  presenting  a  unanimity  of  recommendations 
which  even  under  the  stress  of  war  could  scarcely  have  been 
expected  upon  such  highly  controversial  questions.  In  all 
there  were  thirty-seven  resolutions  and  thirty-four  of  these 
were  agreed  to  unanimously  by  the  Conference.  The  reso- 
lutions covered  all  the  points  that  were  included  in  the 
terms  of  reference.  They  recommended  that  the  qualifying 
period  for  registration  be  reduced  to  six  months,  that  there 
should  be  revision  twice  a  year,  and  that  the  cost  of  registra- 
tion should  be  borne  by  local  and  national  governments.3 

1  The  Nation,  vol.  xx,  1916,  p.  66. 

f  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  86:  21. 

*  Parliamentary  Papers,  1917,  Cd.  8463. 


337]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       131 

In  regard  to  franchise  they  recommended  that  only  three 
qualifications  be  retained — residence,  business  occupation, 
and  university  representation.  A  compromise  was  reached 
in  regard  to  plural  voting;  an  elector  was  to  be  entitled  to 
one  vote  in  respect  of  residence  and  another  vote  in  another 
constituency  in  respect  of  either  business  occupation  or 
university  representation.  On  the  question  of  redistribu- 
tion they  recommended  that  the  normal  unit  should  be 
70,000  population  with  exceptions  for  special  cases.  The 
principle  of  proportional  representation  and  alternative  vot- 
ing were  also  recommended  for  certain  constituencies.  Pro- 
visions were  included  whereby  soldiers  and  sailors  were  to 
be  placed  upon  the  register  and  the  principle  of  absent 
voting  was  approved.  In  regard  to  the  most  difficult  part 
of  the  whole  problem,  that  of  women's  suffrage,  while  not 
unanimous  on  this  point,  the  Conference  recommended  that 
the  parliamentary  franchise  be  conferred  upon  all  women 
who  were  on  the  local  government  register  or  who  were 
wives  of  men  who  were  on  this  register  provided  they  had 
attained  a  certain  age  which  was  not  agreed  upon.  Definite 
limitations  were  recommended  for  candidate's  election  ex- 
penses and  the  disqualifications  because  of  poor  relief  were 
abolished. 

The  resolutions  of  the  Conference  were  accepted  almost 
universally  in  political  circles  as  making  a  great  advance  on 
the  difficult  road  of  franchise  reform.  The  unanimity  of 
the  resolutions  was  a  surprise  even  to  those  who  had  been 
the  most  sanguine  about  the  possibilities  of  such  procedure. 
The  resolution  in  regard  to  women's  suffrage  revealed  the 
fact  that  the  war  had  softened  bitter  antagonisms  and 
had  created  a  more  conciliatory  attitude.  Even  The  Times, 
which  had  been  such  an  implacable  opponent  of  women's 
suffrage,  announced  that  this  was  one  of  the  changes  which 
was  inherent  in  the  circumstances  of  the  war.1 

1The  Times,  February  i,  1917,  p.  7. 


1 32  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [338 

Resolutions  of  Conference  Presented  to  Commons 

After  the  report  had  been  made  public  the  Government 
decided  that  it  ought  to  be  presented  to  the  House  for  dis- 
cussion in  the  form  of  a  resolution.  Accordingly  on 
March  28,1917  Mr.  Asquith,  by  whom  the  Conference  had 
been  instigated,  moved,  "  That  this  House  records  its  thanks 
to  Mr.  Speaker  for  his  services  in  presiding  over  the 
Electoral  Reform  Conference,  and  is  of  the  opinion  that 
legislation  should  promptly  be  introduced  on  the  lines  of  the 
resolutions  reported  from  the  Conference." *  In  intro- 
ducing this  motion  Mr.  Asquith  reviewed  the  situation  in  its 
relation  to  Parliament,  the  acts  which  had  been  passed  to 
prolong  it,  the  antiquated  condition  of  the  register,  the  futile 
attempts  which  had  been  made  to  constitute  a  new  register, 
and  the  necessity  which  the  war  had  produced  of  enabling 
the  electors  in  national  service  to  cast  their  votes.  His 
most  significant  statement  was  the  announcement  of  his 
support  to  the  cause  of  women's  suffrage.  "  I  think  that 
some  years  ago  I  ventured  to  use  the  expression,  '  Let 
the  women  work  out  their  own  salvation.'  Well  sir,  they 
have  worked  it  out  during  the  war."  He  then  proceeded  to 
eulogize  the  great  service  which  they  had  rendered  to  the 
nation  during  the  war  and  the  necessity  for  their  having  a 
voice  in  the  great  problems  of  reconstruction.  To  his  mind 
this  could  now  be  done  with  dignity,  for  there  had  not  been 
for  nearly  three  years  a  recurrence  of  "  that  detestable  cam- 
paign which  disfigured  the  annals  of  political  agitation  in 
this  country  and  so  no  one  can  now  contend  that  we  are 
yielding  to  violence."  The  whole  subject  of  franchise 
reform  could  now  be  approached  in  an  entirely  different 
atmosphere  from  that  of  the  pre-war  days  and  under  much 
more  auspicious  circumstances  than  had  ever  prevailed  be- 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  92:  462-71. 


339]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  2918       133 

fore  in  the  annals  of  English  franchise  legislation.  The 
report  was  supported  not  only  'by  the  Government  but  also 
by  Mr.  Asquith,  now  the  leader  of  the  Opposition. 

That  all  the  opponents  of  women's  suffrage  would  not 
meekly  acquiesce  was  very  soon  made  clear  by  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Arnold  Ward.  He  warned  the  Governmlent  that  if  this 
proposition  were  included,  the  opponents  of  women's  suf- 
frage would  fight  it  to  the  bitter  end  with  all  of  their 
powers.1  While  there  might  fairly  be  a  condition  of  give 
and  take  in  regard  to  registration,  redistribution,  and  plural 
voting,  there  could  be  no  such  attitude  adopted  towards  the 
question'  of  women's  suffrage. 

Mr.  Salter,  supported  by  fifty-two  other  Unionists,  at- 
tempted to  defeat  the  proposal  by  a  motion  which  demanded 
that  the  Government  should  undertake  immediately  to  place 
all  soldiers  and  sailors  on  the  register  and  make  provisions 
for  absent  voting.  Other  than  this  they  demanded  that 
the  whole  attention  of  Parliament  be  devoted  to  the  pros- 
ecution of  the  war.2  They  contended  that  this  was  an  in- 
opportune time  to  begin  consideration  of  this  highly  con- 
troversial subject.  They  were  consistent  in  their  attitude, 
for  they  said  that  if  soldiers  and  sailors  could  not  be  placed 
on  the  register  without  raising  the  whole  franchise  ques- 
tion, then  even1  that  should  be  postponed  until  the  end  of  the 
war.  This  motion  was  defeated  by  an  overwhelming 
majority. 

At  the  close  o<f  the  debate  Mr.  Asquith's  motion  carried 
by  the  vote  of  341  ayes  to  62  noes,  a  majority  of  279.  The 
62  in  opposition  were  all  members  of  the  Unionist  party. 
It  was  evident  that  the  national  service  which  women  had 
rendered  the  state  had  caused  a  great  change  of  public  opinion 
in  their  favor.  The  overwhelming  majority  given  the  reso- 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  92 :  496-500. 
'Ibid.,  471-82. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [340 

lution  was  indicative  of  the  feeling  of  the  House  in  regard 
to  franchise  reform.  It  was  also  the  general  feeling  that  it 
was  time  to  get  this  question  settled  while  it  could  be  under- 
taken from  the  nonpartisan  standpoint  and  to  get  it  out  of 
the  way  of  the  reconstruction  work  which  lay  ahead  of 
Parliament.  So  favorable  was  the  discussion  toward  the 
report  that  at  its  close  Mr.  Bonar  Law  announced  that  the 
Government  would  introduce  a  bill  on  the  agreed  lines. 

Representation  of,  the  People  Bill  of  1917 

The  Government  lost  no  time  in  carrying  out  the  mandate 
of  the  House  and  the  next  day  ordered  the  drafting  of  a 
bill  based  upon  the  report  of  the  Conference.  In  doing  this 
it  proceeded  along  the  same  nonpartisan  lines  that  had  been 
followed  in  the  Conference.  The  bill  was  introduced  for  a 
first  reading  on  May  15,  by  Mr.  Long,  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Colonies.1  The  policy  of  the  Government  was 
simply  to  embody,  in  the  form  of  a  bill,  the  resolutions 
which  had  been  adopted  by  the  House.  There  were  two 
important  exceptions  to  this.  The  questions  of  propor- 
tional representation  and  of  women's  suffrage  were  left  to 
the  House  for  acceptance  or  rejection  and.  the  Government 
agreed  to  abide  by  its  decision. 

The  revolutionary  character  of  the  bill  was  shown  by  the 
fact  that  it  proposed  wholly  to  repeal  thirty-one  existing 
statutes  dealing  with  franchise  and  registration  questions 
and  to  repeal  parts  of  thirty-two  others.  It  abolished  all 
the  old  and  complicated  franchise  laws  and  substituted  there- 
for a  simple  franchise  system.  The  effect  upon  the  elector- 
ate was  far  greater  than  that  of  any  previous  franchise 
reform  bill.  The  Reform  Bill  of  1832  increased  the 
electorate  by  217,386  or  49  per  cent.  The  Reform  Bill  of 
1867  added  938,427  votes  or  88  per  cent,  while  that  of 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  93 : 1492-7. 


34 1 ]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  I918       135 

1884  enfranchised  1,762,087  or  an  increase  of  67  per  cent.1 
In  1915  there  were  8,357,000  electors.  This  bill  proposed 
to  add  about  2,000,000  men  and  about  6,000,000  women 
voters.  The  electorate  would  be  thus  almost  doubled  in 
size  at  one  stroke. 

Colonel  Sanders  led  the  opposition  to  the  bill z  and  was 
supported  by  Mr.  Burdett-Coutts,  Colonel  Gretton,  Sir 
George  Reid,  and  Mr.  Nield.  As  was  to  be  expected  the 
women's  suffrage  question  played  an  important  part  in  the 
debate.  Mr.  Sanders  opposed  the  bill  because  the  Gov- 
ernment did  not  pledge  its  support  to  women's  suffrage, 
while  Mr.  Burdett-Coutts  opposed  it  because  women's  suf- 
frage was  included.  Mr.  Ward  insisted  that  the  question  of 
women's  suffrage  be  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  bill  and 
that  it  be  decided  by  a  referendum  to  the  country.3  On 
division  the  bill  passed  a  second  reading  by  the  vote)  of 
329  to  40,  every  vote  in  the  opposition  'being  from  the 
Unionist  party.  The  debate  was  characterized  by  a  re- 
markable spirit  of  conciliation  and  compromise,  the  ques- 
tion of  women's  suffrage  being  the  only  point  over  which 
there  was  the  old  spirit  of  antagonism  and  even  here 
this  spirit  was  shown  by  only  one  or  two  speakers. 

When  the  bill  came  up  on  the  committee  stage  on  June 
6,  the  first  move  of  the  opponents  was  to  attempt  to  separate 
women's  suffrage  from  the  bill  and  make  it  a  separate  meas- 
ure, but  this  was  ruled  out  of  order  by  the  Speaker.*  Another 
attempt  along  this  line  was  made  by  Sir  Frederick  Banbury 
who  moved  to  instruct  the  committee  to  divide  the  bill,  one 
part  to  deal  with  redistribution  of  seats  and  the  other  with 
parliamentary  and  local  franchise.5  He  maintained  that  it 

1  Seymour,  Electoral  Reforms  in  England  and  Wales,  p.  533. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  93:  2144-56. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  94 :  2424-8. 

4  Ibid.,  162-3.  llbid.,  164-7. 


I36  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [342 

was  impossible  adequately  to  discuss  these  two  questions  in 
one  bill,  and  that  neither  the  House  nor  the  country  knew 
anything  about  the  effect  which  the  instructions  given  to  the 
Boundary  Commission,  which  was  already  at  work,  would 
have  upon  the  constituencies.  He  was  supported  in  his 
contention)  by  Mr.  McNeill,  who  although  a  supporter  of  the 
bill  urged  that  the  House  ought  to  have  opportunity  to 
debate  the  instructions  given  the  Boundary  Commission. 
He  thought  that  the  agricultural  districts  were  in  danger  of 
being  deprived  of  adequate  representation.  While  Mr. 
Cave,  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home  Department,  op- 
posed this  motion  and  maintained  that  it  would  accomplish 
no  useful  purpose,  he  did  promise  that  the  House  would  be 
given  opportunity  to  debate  the  instructions  which  had  been 
given  to  the  Boundary  Commission.  With  this  assurance 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Banbury  was  lost.  This  was  really  a 
concession  to  the  agricultural  interests. 

Parliamentary  Franchise  for  Men 

The  first  section  of  the  bill,  which  dealt  with  the  qualifica- 
tions for  the  parliamentary  franchise  for  men,  was  one  of 
its  most  revolutionary  provisions.  Heretofore,  as  has  been 
pointed  out,  when  franchise  reform  bills  had  been  enacted 
the  Government  had  left  most  of  the  old  qualifications  intact 
and  had  simply  created  new  qualifications  or  extended  the 
old  ones.  This  process  resulted  in  a  franchise  system  full 
of  complications,  inequalities,  and  anomalies  which  were 
wholly  indefensible  and  led  to>  an  enormous  amount  of 
litigation  in  order  to  establish  franchise  rights  under  the 
conflicting  and  complicated  laws.  The  Conference  decided 
to  repeal  this  mass  of  laws  entirely.  The  two  chief  qualifi- 
cations retained  were  residence  and  business  premises.  Ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  any  man  twenty-one 
years  of  age  was  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  parliamentary 


343]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       137 

elector,  in  respect  of  residence  qualifications,  if  he  occupied 
a  residence.1  The  rating  of  premises,  or  payment  of  rates, 
or  the  value  of  the  premises  played  no  part  in  the  qualifica- 
tions. This  would  enable  a  great  many  men  to  qualify  for 
the  franchise  who  could  not  do  so  under  the  existing  laws. 
It  would,  for  example,  permit  the  registration  of  sons  living 
at  home  with  their  parents.  The  one  requirement  placed 
upon  the  business  premises  qualification  was  that  it  be  of 
£10  yearly  value  and  t>e  occupied  for  the  purpose  of 
business,  profession,  or  trade.  The  old  requirement  of 
rating  or  payment  of  rates  was  eliminated,  but  business 
premises  must  be  actually  occupied  in  the  capacity  of  owner- 
ship or  tenancy. 

In  order  to  have  either  the  requisite  residence  or  business 
premises  qualifications  an  elector  must  have  resided  or  oc- 
cupied premises  for  the  whole  of  the  qualifying  period  in  a 
constituency,  in  the  same  parliamentary  borough  or  county 
or  in  a  contiguous  parliamentary  borough  or  county.  This 
was  a  great  extension  of  the  principle  of  successive  occupa- 
tion which  previously  had  been  possible  only  within  one 
borough  or  one  parliamentary  division  of  a  county.2  The 
bill  also  provided  that  the  county  of  London  should  be 
treated  as  one  borough,  which  meant  that  a  voter  might 
move  from  one  part  of  London  to  any  other  part  or  into  any 
parliamentary  borough  or  county  adjoining  London  and  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  successive  occupation  voter. 

After  several  minor  amendments  had  been  offered  and 
either  withdrawn  or  defeated  Sir  F.  Banbury  made  an  at- 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1917.  Bill  49. 

2  The    law    of    successive    occupation    provided    that    a    voter    in    a 
parliamentary  borough  or  county  could  change  his  residence  to  an- 
other part  of  the  borough  or  county,  even  though  a  different  division  of 
a  parliamentary  borough,  an<i  it  would  have  the  same  effect  in1  qualify- 
ing the  voter  as  a  continued  occupation  in  the  same  premises.    Repre- 
sentation of  People  Act,  1867  (30  &  31  Viet.,  c.  102),  s.  26. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [344 

tempt  to  reintroduce  the  ownership  qualification  on  the 
basis  of  ownership  of  land  or  premises  of  the  annual  value 
of  £5  or  upwards.1  He  argued  that  this  was  the  oldest  of 
English  franchise  qualifications  and  that  it  was  unfair  to  the 
owners  of  small  holdings  to  be  deprived  of  their  votes ;  they 
had  just  as  much  interest  in  the  country  as  the  man  with  a 
small  business  premises  of  f  10  annual  value.  This  raised 
the  whole  question  of  plural  voting.  Colonel  R.  Williams 
and  Sir  J.  Simon,  both  members  of  the  Conference,  objected 
to  the  reintroduction  of  the  ownership  qualification  into  the 
franchise  law.  It  was  brought  out  that  the  ownership 
qualification  had  been  eliminated  by  the  Conference  on  a 
compromise.  It  had  been  considered  in  connection  with 
plural  voting  and  university  representation  and  these,  they 
maintained,  would  never  have!  been  agreed  to  had  the 
ownership  vote  been  retained.  The  amendment  failed  by 
vote  of  35  to  228. 

Another  attempt  was  made  by  Sir  F.  Banbury  to  pre- 
serve the  parliamentary  constituencies  in  the  County  of 
London  as  they  had  existed.  The  bill  abolished  these 
twenty-eight  constituencies  and  made  the  County  of  London 
one  parliamentary  borough.  This  had  been  a  source  of 
much  contention  between  the  Liberals  and  the  Unionists  for 
years.  Sir  F.  Banbury  raised  the  old  question  and  pre- 
sented the  old  argument  that  the  City  of  London  was  not  a 
single  city  but  an  agglomeration  of  cities  which  deserved 
special  treatment.2  The  Government  refused  to  enter  into 
the  old  controversy.  After  a  short  discussion  the  amend- 
ment was  defeated  and  the  Liberals  from  a  party  standpoint 
won  a  victory. 

The  clause  which  defined  business  premises  did  not  in- 
clude land  used  for  business  purposes,  such  as  gardening, 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  94 :  219-20. 
*Ibid.,  419-20. 


345]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       139 

within  the  meaning  of  the  term.  An  amendment  to  this 
effect  was  introduced  and  accepted  by  the  Government  on 
the  principle  that  it  wanted  to  give  as  broad  an  interpreta- 
tion as  possible  to  business  premises.  As  a  result  of  this 
a  market  gardener  occupying  land  for  his  business  would  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  in  respect  of  business  occupancy 
while  a  person  occupying  a  piece  of  land  to  grow  vegetables 
for  his  own  consumption  or  for  pleasure  would  not  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  for  such  occupancy. 

The  first  clause  of  the  bill  was  adopted  by  the  remarkable 
vote  of  184  to  14.  While  there  was  not  a  very  full  House 
the  opposition  of  14  votes  was  a  very  feeble  protest  against 
the  simple  qualifications  of  residence  and  business  premises 
as  proposed  by  the  bill. 

University  Franchise  JJOY  Men 

The  third  basis  for  the  franchise  qualification  as  provided 
by  the  bill  was  that  of  university  representation.  This  ex- 
tended the  right  to  register  as  a  parliamentary  elector  to 
all  male  graduates,  of  full  age,  of  universities  which  formed 
a  whole  or  part  of  a  university  constituency.  The  opposi- 
tion to  this  form  of  representation  practically  disappeared 
with  the  limitation  on  plural  voting,  and  there  was  no  dis- 
cussion on  the  general  principle  of  university  representation. 
In  fact,  the  clause  was  agreed  to  without  division.  This 
was  a  great  extension  of  the  franchise  to  the  educated 
classes.  Prior  to  the  act  only  male  graduates  of  Oxford, 
Cambridge,  London,  Dublin,  Glasgow  and  Aberdeen,  and 
Edinburgh  and  St.  Andrews  were  entitled  to  register.  This 
act  extended  this  privilege  to  graduates  of  Durham,  Man- 
chester, Liverpool,  Leeds,  Sheffield,  Birmingham,  Bristol, 
and  Wales.  By  the  Irish  Redistribution  Bill  Queen's 
University  of  Belfast  and  the  National  University  of  Ireland 
were  also  granted  representation,  making  a  total  of  fifteen 


I40  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [346 

university  representatives.  Seemingly  this  was  a  victory  for 
the  Conservatives  although  it  was  deprived  of  much  of  its 
advantage  by  the  limitation  on  plural  voting.  In  reality  it 
was  a  victory  for  the  more  democratic  forces  in  the  younger 
universities. 

Local  Govermnent  Franchise  for  Men 

The  qualifications  for  local  government  franchise  caused 
a  great  deal  of  discussion  because  of  the  fact  that  the 
women's  suffrage  franchise  was  based  upon  the  local  gov- 
ernment franchise.  The  bill  as  introduced  provided  that 
any  man  of  full  age  was  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  local 
government  elector  if  he  occupied  as  owner  or  tenant  any 
land  or  premises  in  a  local  government  electoral  area.  He 
must,  however,  have  occupied  this  during  the  whole  of  the 
qualifying  period.  This  greatly  simplified  the  position  of 
the  local  government  elector.  Formerly  one  set  of  electors 
voted  for  town  or  county  councils  while  others  were  entitled 
to  vote  for  parish  or  district  councils.1  This  abolished  all 
of  these  old  qualifications  and  made  one  qualification  for  all 
local  government  purposes.  It  was  virtually  an  occupa- 
tion qualification,  for  the  one  condition  was  that  the  voter 
must  actually  occupy  the  land  or  premises  as  either  owner 
or  tenant.  The  qualifications  did  not  depend  in  any  way 
upon:  the  value,  rating  or  payment  of  rates  upon  the  land  or 
premises.  There  were  no  limitations  placed  upon  the  use 
of  the  land  or  premises  by  the  owner  or  occupier  as  f  ormerly 
or  as  in  the  case  of  the  parliamentary  occupation  qualifica- 
tion. The  bill  as  introduced  excluded  all  lodgers  from  the 
right  to  register  as  local  government  electors.  This  feature 
was  especially  objectionable  to  London  because  there  the 
lodgers  occupying  furnished  or  unfurnished  apartments  of 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1882  (45  &  46  Viet,  c.  50)  ss.  9.  n,. 
51 ;  Local  Government  Act,  1894  (56  &  57  Viet.,  c.  73)  ss.  2,  3,  23,  43. 


347]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       141 

£10  annual  value  were  entitled  to  be  registered  as  local 
government  electors, 

Mr.  Adamson  introduced  an  amendment  to  this  clause 
which  would  place  the  local  government  franchise  on  the 
same  basis  as  the  parliamentary  franchise.1  He  argued 
that  this  clause  as  drafted  would  disfranchise  the  lodgers  in 
London.  Sir  G.  Cave  defending  the  clause  and  speaking 
for  the  Government  replied  that  there  was  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent basis  for  the  two  franchises.  The  right  of  registra- 
tion in  the  parliamentary  franchise  was  granted  to  all  res- 
idents and  occupiers  of  business  premises.  But  in  the 
case  of  the  local  government,  the  local  rates  were  paid  by  the 
occupiers  or  owners  and  they  should  have  the  right  to  vote 
these  rates;  the  voting  of  rates  should  not  be  left  to  the 
residents.  On  this  ground  the  Government  refused  to 
accept  the  amendment.  This  did  not  settle  the  matter, 
for  Mr.  Dickinson  moved  an  amendment  to  make  a 
distinction  between  lodgers  who  occupied  furnished  and 
those  who  occupied  unfurnished  rooms.2  He  estimated 
that  there  were  in  London  about  108,000  parliamentary 
voters  on  the  lodger  list  who  by  the  bill  would  be  disfran- 
chised from  the  local  government  vote.  Of  these  about 
65,000  occupied  unfurnished  lodgings  and  43,000  occupied 
furnished  lodgings.  His  amendment  provided  that  the 
term  tenant  should  include  all  lodgers  who  rented  a  room 
or  rooms  in  an  unfurnished  state.*  The  Government  rec- 
ognized the  legitimacy  of  the  claim  and  yielding  to  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94:  1513-14. 

*Ibid.,  1529-31. 

•A  great  deal  of  litigation  has  been  necessary  to  establish  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  occupier  and  the  lodger.  The  general  principle  is 
that  an  occupier  is  one  who  occupies  a  whole  or  a  part  of  a  house  en- 
tirely separate  and  independent  from  the  landlord,  while  in  the  case 
of  the  lodger  the  landlord  still  exercises  some  control  over  the  premises. 
Halsbury,  The  Laws  of  England,  vol.  xii,  pp.  168-9. 


I42  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [348 

strong  pressure  from  the  London  members,  granted  this 
compromise.  According  to  the  amendment  all  occupiers 
of  unfurnished  rooms  regardless  of  value  were  granted 
the  right  to  register  as  local  government  electors.  The 
lodgers  of  furnished  rooms  were  not  granted  the  right 
to  register,  yet  it  greatly  increased  the  total  number  of  local 
governmer  t  electors  in  London,  because  heretofore  all  those 
occupying  rooms  below  £10  rent  had  been  debarred  from 
the  right  to  vote. 

During  the  report  stage  a  clause  was  added  which  ex- 
tended the  local  government  franchise  to  the  service  voters. 
It  provided  that  a  man  who  himself  inhabited  any  dwelling 
house  by  virtue  of  any  office,  service,  or  employment,  should 
if  the  dwelling  house  was  not  inhabited  by  the  person  in 
whose  services  he  was  employed,  be  deemed  to  occupy  the 
dwelling  house  as  a  tenant.1  By  the  Act  of  1884  a  man  who 
inhabited  a  dwelling  house,  by  reason  of  service,  in  which 
his  employer  did  not  reside,  was  granted  the  parliamentary 
franchise.  This  act  now  extended  to  these  service  voters, 
for  the  first  time,  the  local  government  franchise.  This 
conferred  the  local  government  franchise  upon  a  large 
number  of  men  holding  responsible  positions  such  as  bank 
managers,  schoolmasters,  managers  of  large  businesses,  shop 
assistants,  and  others  who  occupy  separate  rooms  on  their 
employer's  premises.2 

According  to  the  bill  as  finally  adopted  the  local  govern- 
ment franchise  was  made  uniform  and  was  granted  to  all 
those  who  occupied  land  or  premises  as  owners  or  tenants. 
In  this  connection  the  term  tenant  was  to  include  lodgers 
who  rented  unfurnished  rooms  and  service  voters. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  99:  67&-&X 
'  Seager,  The  Reform  Act  of  1918,  p.  39. 


349]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  jgiS       143 

Women's  Suffrage 

When  the  question  of  women's  suffrage  came  up  for  con- 
sideration Sir  F.  Banbury  moved  an  amendment  which 
virtually  eliminated  this  provision  from  the  bill.1  As  the 
Government  had  announced  that  there  would  be  a  free  vote 
upon  women's  suffrage  this  introduced  the  whole  matter 
before  the  House  for  disposition.  He  argued  that  the 
House  fresh  from  an  election  had  defeated  a  women's  suf- 
frage bill  in  1912  and  1913  and  this  was  a  very  inopportune 
time  for  a  House  which  had  already  outlived  its  legal 
period  by  eighteen  months  to  deal  with  this  question. 

It  was  apparent  that  the  change  of  position  of  Mr. 
Asquith  on  the  question  of  women's  suffrage,  because  of  the 
services  of  women  during  the  war,  led  to  many  other  similar 
decisions  which  made  very  serious  inroads  upon  the  anti- 
suffrage  forces.  Sir  F.  E.  Smith,  Attorney-General,  who 
had  been  one  of  the  strongest  opponents  of  women's  suf- 
frage, announced  his  decision  to  support  the  provision.7 
This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  bill  contained  so  many 
provisions  he  heartily  approved;  in  order  to  insure  the 
adoption  of  these  reforms  and  in  order  to  dispose  of  the 
other  highly  contentious  questions,  of  which  he  did  not  ap- 
prove, he  agreed  to  support  the  bill  as  a  whole.  A  great 
many  others  found  themselves  in  exactly  the  same  position 
and  when  they  had  to  choose  between  accepting  women's 
suffrage  or  rejecting  the  whole  bill  they  did  not  hesitate 
to  support  the  whole  measure. 

The  closing  speech  in  the  long  fight  against  the  inevitable 
movement  towards  women's  suffrage  was  made  by  Mr. 
Ward.3  He  argued  that  regardless  of  whether  or  not  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94:  1640-45. 
'  Ibid.,  1670-5. 
'Ibid.,  1738-48. 


I44  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [350 

war  had  altered  the  position  of  women  this  was  not  the  time 
to  settle  the  question  when  there  were  millions  of  electors  at 
the  front  and  when  a  large  number  of  members  of  the 
House  were  absent.  This  was  especially  true  when  the 
House  had  three  times  prolonged  its  own  life  and  a  solemn 
political  truce  had  been  entered  into.  He  demanded  that 
the  question  of  women's  suffrage  be  separated  from  the 
rest  of  the  bill  so  a  straight  vote  could  be  taken  on  this 
one  issue.  On  division  the  retention  of  the  women's 
suffrage  clause  as  part  of  the  bill  was  carried  by  the 
vote  of  385  to  55,  the  largest  majority  ever  given  to  a 
women's  suffrage  measure.1  This  was  the  more  remarkable 
because  it  was  not  a  Government  clause  but  was  left  to  the 
House  to  decide.  It  was  generally  admitted  before  the 
debate  that  the  women's  suffrage  clause  would  be  retained 
in  the  bill  so  those  who  protested  against  it  most  vigorously 
realized  they  were  defending  a  lost  cause.  The  debate  was 
well  characterized  by  Mr.  G.  Thorne  when  he  said,  "  What 
is  manifest  in  this  debate  is  its  apparent  dullness.  That  is 
its  most  hopeful  characteristic,  for  the  fight  is  out  of  the 
whole  struggle.  It  is  absolutely  clear  that  the  fight  is 
won." :  It  was  the  consensus  of  opinion  that  the  conduct 
of  women  during  the  war  had  won  for  them  the  franchise 
and  it  was  mentioned  in  one  form  or  another  in  almost 
every  speech. 

1  An  analysis  of  the  votes  shows  that  some  of  the  Liberals  still  refused 
to  change  their  course  and  voted  with  the  minority. 

For  Against 

Liberals  184  12 

Unionists   141  45 

Labor 29 

Nationalists   33 

387  57 

This  included  the  Tellers.    The  Times,  June  21,  1917,  p.  7. 
Parliamentary  Debates,  $th  series,  vol.  94:  1716. 


35 1  ]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       145 

Franchise  Qualifications  for  Women 
As  soon  as  it  had  been  definitely  decided  that  some  form 
of  women's  suffrage  would  be  granted,  the  next  question 
that  arose  was  as  to  its  basis.  The  bill,  as  introduced,  pro- 
vided that  a  woman  would  be  entitled  to  register  as  a 
parliamentary  elector  if  she  were  thirty  years  of  age,  and 
not  subject  to  any  legal  incapacity,  and  entitled  to  be 
registered  as  a  local  government  elector  in  respect  of  land 
or  premises  or  were  the  wife  of  a  husband  who  was  entitled 
to  be  so  registered.  The  university  franchise  was  also 
extended  to  women  who  were  thirty  years  of  age  on  the 
same  conditions  as  for  men.  The  local  government  fran- 
chise was  extended  to  women  on  the  same  basis  as  it  was  to 
men  except  that  a  husband  and  wife  could  not  qualify  as 
local  government  electors  in  respect  of  the  same  property. 
This  provision  really  acted  as  a  disfranchising  clause  to 
married  women  who  lived  with  their  husbands,  granting  the 
local  franchise  only  to  widows  and  spinsters.  The  age 
limit  was  twenty-one  years,  the  same  as  for  men. 

The  first  move  by  the  anti-suffrage  forces  to  defeat 
women's  suffrage  on  the  discussion  of  its  provisions  was  a 
motion  by  Mr.  Peto  to  strike  out  the  thirty-years  age  limita- 
tion.1 He  maintained  that  this  was  an  arbitrary  and 
and  illogical  limit;  that  it  was  mainly  the  women  under 
thirty  years  of  age  who  had  been  engaged  in  war  work  and 
it  was  they  who  would  be  most  vitally  affected  by  in- 
dustrial reconstruction.  In  the  discussion  it  was  brought 
out  by  Mr.  Dickinson,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Conference, 
that  this  age  limit  had  been  agreed  upon  as  a  compromise.2 
Among  the  members  there  were  those  who  favored  adult 
suffrage  which  would  have  enfranchised  between  12,000,000 
and  14,000,000  women.  Since  this  would  give  the  women 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94 :  1812-16. 
9  Ibid.,  1816-21. 


I46  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [352 

electors  a  decided  majority  it  was  not  considered  seriously. 
The  Conference  finally  agreed  upon  the  enfranchisement  of 
between  5,000,000  and  6,000,000  women.  In  any  plan  it 
was  necessary  that  all  classes  be  included.  There  were 
about  7,000,000  women  over  forty  years  of  age  and 
10,000,000  over  thirty  years;  it  was  evident  that  age  limit 
alone  would  not  be  an  acceptable  basis.  It  was  finally 
decided,  therefore,  to  grant  the  parliamentary  franchise  to 
women,  thirty  years  of  age,  who  possessed  the  local  govern- 
ment franchise  qualifications  or  were  the  wives  of  hus- 
bands possessing  the  local  government  franchise.  This 
plan  had  the  advantage  of  including  all  classes  in  the  com- 
munity and  also  married  women,  and  yet  keeping  the  women 
electors  in  the  minority.  This  scheme  would  not  enfran- 
chise servants,  maids,  daughters  living  at  home,  and  other 
women  in  similar  position  in  the  family,  but  the  vote  would 
go  to  the  head  woman  of  the  household.  Since  the  women's 
suffrage  clause  had  carried  by  such  a  large  majority,  the 
Government  now  insisted  that  the  age  limit  of  thirty  years 
be  retained  in  the  bill,  especially  since  the  attempt  to  reduce 
this  requirement  was  backed  only  by  the  opponents  of 
women's  suffrage.  While  there  was  some  criticism  of  this 
position  of  the  Government,  it  refused  to  make  any  con- 
cessions and  the  amendment  failed. 

Another  attempt  was  made  by  Mr.  Peto  to  limit  the  scope 
of  the  bill  by  striking  out  the  clause  which  granted  the 
franchise  to  the  wife  of  a  husband  entitled  to  the  local 
government  franchise.  The  omission  of  this  clause  would 
virtually  have  excluded  married  women  and  granted  the 
vote  to  spinsters,  widows,  and  a  few  others  having  business 
occupation;  it  would  have  included  only  about  1,000,000 
women.1  He  argued  that  this  was  a  much  more  conserva- 
tive step  and  would  give  the  vote  to  women  who  had  to 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94 : 1870-2. 


353]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8      147 

make  their  own  living.  This  endeavor  to  enfranchise  only 
unmarried  women  met  with  very  little  encouragement  in  the 
House  and  the  amendment  was  defeated. 

The  bill  as  introduced  based  the  parliamentary  franchise 
for  women  upon  the  local  government  franchise.  Since 
there  was  no  valuation  qualification  for  the  local  government 
franchise  this  gave  women  a  decided  advantage  over  men 
in  reference  to  the  occupation  qualification  in  parliamentary 
elections,  which  for  men  must  be  of  not  less  than  £10  yearly 
value.  In  order  to  remedy  this  discrepancy  an  amendment 
was  later  adopted  by  the  Lords  and  accepted  by  the  House 
which  provided  that  the  premises  (not  being  a  dwelling! 
house)  occupied  by  a  woman  as  occupier  or  tenant,  must 
be  of  not  less  than  £5  yearly  value.1  This  still  gave 
women  a  slight  advantage  over  men  in  the  occupation  quali- 
fication, but  any  higher  valuation  would  have  reduced  too 
greatly  the  number  of  women  electors. 

The  House  of  Lords  also  made  a  slight  concession,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  Commons,  to  women  who  had  attended 
universities  that  did  not  grant  degrees  to  women.  If  they 
had  passed  the  final  examination  and  had  fulfilled  the  con- 
ditions as  to  residence  necessary  for  a  man  to  obtain  a 
degree,  then  they  were  entitled  to  be  registered  as  parlia- 
mentary electors  for  the  university  constituency.2 

The  bill  as  drafted  made  a  distinct  difference  between 
the  parliamentary  and  the  local  government  franchise.  For 
parliamentary  purposes  the  wife  of  a  husband  who  possessed 
the  local  government  vote  would  have  the  parliamentary 
vote;  but  for  the  local  government  franchise  the  husband  and 
wife  could  not  both  qualify  in  respect  of  the  same  property. 
This  would  exclude  about  5,000,000  married  women  from 
the  local  government  franchise  who  were  entitled  to  the 

1  Parliamentary  Delates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27:  1192-4. 
*Ibid.,  1194-8. 


I48  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [354 

parliamentary  franchise.  Mr.  C.  Roberts  moved  to  amend 
this  clause  so  as  to  extend  the  local  government  franchise 
to  wives  whose  husbands  were  local  government  electors.1 
This  amendment  was  urged1  on  the  ground  that  there 
was  no  reason  why  women  should  be  invested  with  the 
highest  imperial  responsibility  and  at  the  same  time  pro- 
hibited from  taking  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  local  govern- 
ment under  which  they  lived.  The  Government  refused  to 
accept  this  amendment  because  the  real  purpose  of  the 
Conference  and  the  bill  was  to  deal  with  the  question  of 
parliamentary  franchise.  In  spite  of  the  position  of  the 
Government  there  was  a  very  general  support  of  this) 
amendment,  but  it  was  withdrawn  by  Mr.  Roberts  in  the 
hope  that  the  Government  would  later  consider  the  proposi- 
tion. 

On  November  15,  when  the  report  stage  of  the  women's 
suffrage  section  was  under  consideration  the  question  of  pro- 
hibiting married  women  from  being  local  government 
electors  was  again  raised.  In  the  meantime  there  had  been 
a  great  deal  of  agitation  upon  the  question  by  the  women  and 
by  the  supporters  of  women's  suffrage  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  They  demanded  that  this  illogical  provision  be 
changed  and  that  the  municipal  franchise  be  extended 
to  women  on  the  same  basis  as  the  parliamentary  fran- 
chise. Mr.  Acland  moved  an  amendment  which  provided 
that  a  woman  should  be  entitled  to  register  'as  a  local 
government  elector  when  she  was  the  wife  of  a  man 
entitled  to  be  so  registered.2  This  would  entirely  remove 
the  disability  from  married  women  and  place  them  upon  an 
equal  basis  with  men  even  as  to  age.  Sir  G.  Cave  again 
refused  to  accept  the  amendment  on  the  principle  that  it 
ran  counter  to  the  proposal  made  by  the  Speaker's  Confer- 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94:  1882-4. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  99:  691-8. 


355]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       149 

ence  and  especially  because  with  no  age  limitation  the 
women  would  entirely  outnumber  the  male  local  government 
electors. 

This  did  not  satisfy  the  supporters  of  the  amendment  and 
they  appealed  to  the  Government  to  leave  the  question  open 
for  the  House  to  decide  as  the  women's  suffrage  issue  had 
been  left.  When  the  House  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  clause  on  November  20,  appeals  were  made  on  all  sides, 
from  the  opponents  of  parliamentary  women's  suffrage,  as 
well  as  its  supporters,  for  the  Government  to  leave  this  ques- 
tion open  for  decision  by  the  House.  To  this  overwhelm- 
ing demand  the  Government  agreed  with  the  understanding 
that  the  age  limit  be  placed  at  thirty  years.  This  had 
already  been  agreed  to  by  the  supporters  of  the  amendment 
and  in  this  form  it  was  incorporated  in  the  clause  and  ac- 
cepted without  even  a  division.  Surely  this  was  a  com- 
plete victory  for  the  women's  cause. 

The  bill  as  finally  adopted,  therefore,  granted  the  parlia- 
mentary franchise  to  all  women  above  the  age  of  thirty 
years  (not  subject  to  any  legal  incapacity)  who  occupied 
as  owners  or  tenants  any  land  or  premises  in  a  constituency. 
The  premises,  with  the  exception  of  dwelling  houses,  must 
be  of  £5  yearly  value.  In  the  case  of  joint  occupiers  the 
value  of  the  qualifying  property  must  be  equal  to  £5  to 
each  joint  woman  occupier.  The  franchise  was  also  ex- 
tended to  the  wives  (thirty  years  of  age)  of  all  husbands 
who  were  entitled  to  be  registered  as  local  government 
electors.  The  university  franchise  was  extended  to  all 
women  graduates  or  those  who  had  fulfilled  the  qualifica- 
tions for  graduation,  thirty  years  of  age,  on  practically  the 
same  basis  as  men.  It  was  estimated  that  this  would  extend 
the  parliamentary  franchise  to  a  total  of  about  6,000,000 
women.  The  local  government  franchise  was  extended  to 
all  women  above  twenty-one  years  of  age  on  the  same 


I5o  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [356 

basis  as  men.  It  also  provided  that  a  wife  and  her  husband 
could  qualify  in  respect  of  the  same  residence  provided  she 
was  thirty  years  of  age. 

Special  Provisions  for  Persons  in  War  Service 

The  demand  that  soldiers  and  sailors  be  placed  on  the 
register  regardless  of  their  qualifications  was  one  of  the 
issues  which  had  precipitated  the  discussion  concerning 
franchise  reform  and  had  made  some  action  imperative. 
The  bill  as  introduced  provided  that  during  the  war  and 
for  twelve  months  afterwards  any  person  would  be  entitled 
to  be  registered  as  a  parliamentary  elector  in  any  constitu- 
ency provided  he  would  have  had  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions but  for  the  interruption  of  the  war.  It  provided  that 
the  statement,  made  in  the  proper  form,  of  any  one  claiming 
to  be  so  registered  was  sufficient.  A  liberal  interpretation 
was  given  to  this  section  and  applied  to  all  so-called  "  naval 
or  military  voters,"  that  is  to  any  person  abroad  who  was  a 
member  of  the  naval  or  military  forces  of  the  Crown  or  in 
service  of  a  naval  or  military  character  for  which  payment 
was  made  out  of  money  provided  by  Parliament  or  who 
was  serving  in  any  work  of  the  British  Red  Cross  Society, 
or  the  St.  John  Ambulance  Association,  or  any  other  organ- 
ization with  a  similar  object.  This  was  later  amended  so 
as  to  include  also  those  in  service  as  merchant  seamen,  pilots, 
fishermen,  or  any  one  in  any  way  connected  with  work 
recognized  by  the  Admiralty,  Army  Council,  or  Air  Council 
as  work  of  national  importance  in  connection  with  the  war. 

There  had  been  a  great  deal  of  criticism  concerning  this 
section  because  some  of  the  members  felt  that  the  Govern- 
ment had  attempted  to  limit  and  restrict  the  soldier  and 
sailor  vote  and  also  because  it  was  limited  in  its  duration  to 
twelve  months  after  the  termination  of  the  war.  To  meet 
this  criticism  the  Government  introduced  an  amendment 


357]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  ipi#      151 

which  provided  that  any  soldier  or  sailor  on  full  pay  in 
either  military  or  naval  forces  would  be  entitled  to  be  regis- 
tered as  a  parliamentary  elector.  This  was  not  limited  to 
the  duration  of  the  war.1 

An  attempt  was  made  immediately  to  amend  this  so  as 
to  reduce  the  age  qualification  from  twenty-one  to  nine- 
teen years  on  the  principle  that  those  who  had  faced  the 
dangers  at  the  front  for  their  country  ought  also  to  enjoy  the 
right  to  vote.  This  was  opposed  by  Sir  G.  Cave;  he  main- 
tained that  it  went  beyond  the  purpose  of  the  clause  which 
was  simply  to  prevent  any  soldier  or  sailor,  who  was  other- 
wise entitled  to  the  vote,  from  losing  his  vote  because  of 
his  being  irt  the  service  of  the  Crown.  It  was  also  pointed 
out  by  Mr.  Gladstone  that  this  would  give  rise  to  injustice  to 
women  below  the  age  of  twenty-one  and  thirty-one  who 
were  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  country.  Because  of  the 
strong  demand  for  this  change  the  Government  promised  to 
consider  it  before  the  report  stage.  At  that  time  the  age 
limit  of  nineteen  years  was  accepted  without  division  for  all 
male  naval  and  military  voters. 

These  provisions  were  adopted  as  a  permanent  policy  of 
the  Government  and  applied  to  peace  times  as  well  as  to  any 
future  wars  and  to  all  naval  and  military  voters  serving  at 
home  or  abroad.  In  case  the  naval  or  military  voter  had 
had  an  occupation  vote  for  business  premises  but  had  lost 
it  owing  to  the  war,  he  was  entitled  to  be  registered  for  it 
even  though  he  no  longer  possessed  the  qualifications. 
These  provisions  applied  to  men  and  women  alike  except 
that  the  age  qualification  for  the  men  was  nineteen  years  and 
for  women  thirty  years.  These  special  provisions  did  not 
apply  to  the  great  class  of  munition  workers.  They  moved 
in  great  numbers  from  their  homes  to  munition  centers  and 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  95:  59-60. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [358 

many  of  them  were  unable  to  register  because  of  residence 
qualifications.  This  class  of  war  workers  was  given  no 
special  consideration. 

Qualifying  Period 

The  length  of  the  qualifying  period  which  was  twelve 
months  had  caused  a  great  deal  of  discussion  and  many 
bills  had  been  introduced  attempting  to  shorten  it.  Under 
the  old  conditions  it  took  at  least  eighteen  months  to  get 
on  the  register  and  often  as  much  as  two  and  one-half  years 
elapsed  before  a  man  could  vote.1  This  worked  a  special 
hardship  upon  the  laboring  and  poorer  classes  that  moved 
frequently;  hence  thousands  were  disfranchised  because  of 
the  qualifying  requirement. 

The  bill  reduced  the  qualifying  period  to  six  months  end- 
ing either  on  January  1 5,  or  July  1 5.  This  was  the  result  of 
a  compromise  in  the  Conference  between  the  more  con- 
servative, who  wanted  to  retain  the  twelve  months,  and  the 
more  radical,  who  wanted  only  a  three  months  qualifying 
period.  The  bill  also  provided  that  in  case  of  naval  or 
military  voters  who  ceased  to  serve  during  the  qualifying 
period,  one  month  would  be  substituted  for  six  months  as 
the  qualifying  period.  Another  section  was  later  introduced 
in  the  bill  to  prevent  a  person  from  moving  into  a  new  con- 
stituency on  the  last  day  of  the  qualifying  period  and  get- 
ting on  the  register  immediately  as  a  "  swallow  voter."  In 
order  to  deal  with  this  situation  a  compromise  was  reached 
by  providing  that  if  a  man  moved  into  a  constituency  within 
thirty  days  before  the  registration  period,  and  an  objection 
was  taken  against  him,  the  test  as  to  whether  he  was  a  bona 
fide  elector  would  be  whether  he  had  continued  to  reside 
there  thirty  days  after  beginning  his  residence.  If  so  he 
was  entitled  to  register,  otherwise  he  was  not  so  entitled. 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  10-11. 


359]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       153 

The   shorter   qualifying  period   was   accepted   with  little 
opposition. 

The  Question  of  Plural  Voting 

As  has  been  seen  in  the  previous  chapters  the  demand  for 
the  abolition  of  plural  voting  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of 
the  agitation  for  franchise  reform.  The  section  as  intro- 
duced in  the  bill  relating  to  the  rights  of  registered  persons 
to  vote  provided  that  a  man  registered  as  a  parliamentary 
elector  could  vote  in  only  one  constituency  under  a  residence 
qualification,  and  in  not  more  than  one  constituency  by 
virtue  of  any  other  qualification.  This  abolished  the  plural 
vote  but  permitted  the  dual  vote.  It  limited  the  right,  how- 
ever, of  the  voter  to  one  vote,  unless  he  were  also  registered 
in  another  constituency  in  respect  of  occupation  or  university 
qualifications,  in  which  case  he  might  vote  in  two  con- 
stituencies. 

This  clause  raised  another  point  which  engendered  a  great 
deal  of  party  spirit  before  it  was  finally  settled.  The 
Redistribution  Act  of  1885  prohibited  an  elector  from  voting 
in  more  than  one  division  of  a  parliamentary  'borough  at  a 
general  election.1  This  abolished  plural  voting  within  any 
single  parliamentary  borough.  The  bill  as  introduced  re- 
pealed this  section  of  the  Act  of  1885  and  simply  restricted 
the  elector  to  a  vote  in  not  more  than  two  constituencies. 
Although  plural  voting  was  entirely  abolished  (as  it  had 
been  abolished  within  the  parliamentary  boroughs  since 
1885)  the  bill  now  permitted  the  dual  vote  even  within  the 
parliamentary  boroughs.  The  effect  of  this,  however,  was 
greatly  limited  by  the  incorporation  in  the  bill  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  proportional  representation.  This  meant  that 
boroughs  having  three,  four  or  five  members  would  still  be 

1  The  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act,  1885  (48  &  49  Viet.,  c.  23)  s.  8. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [360 

single  constituencies,  without  divisions,  and  the  dual  vote 
could  not  be  exercised  even  though  permitted  by  the  bill. 
It  could  be  exercised  only  where  the  borough  was  large 
enough  to  be  separated  into  divisions  having  in  each  case 
five  members.  Even  in  a  large  borough  with  fifteen  members 
there  would  be  only  three  divisions. 

The  Instructions  to  the  Boundary  Commission  to  work 
as  though  proportional  representation  had  been  eliminated 
from  the  bill,  entirely  changed  this  situation.1  If  the 
principle  of  proportional  representation  were  adopted  there 
would  be  a  large  number  of  multiple  member  divisions  in 
the  boroughs;  if  it  were  stricken  out,  there  would  remain 
only  single  member  divisions  which  would  greatly  increase 
the  importance  of  the  dual  vote.  Mr.  Harris,  therefore, 
moved  an  amendment  which  provided  that  an  elector  could 
not  vote  in  more  than  one  division  of  a  parliamentary 
borough  at  a  general  election.  The  amendment  was 
withdrawn  on  the  understanding  that  it  would  be  taken 
up  again  after  proportional  representation  had  been  defi- 
nitely settled.  On  the  report  stage,  after  proportional 
representation  had  been  definitely  rejected,  this  much 
mooted  point  was  again  raised  by  Mr.  G.  Thorne,  who  in- 
troduced an  amendment  providing  that  in  case  proportional 
representation  were  not  reintroduced  in  the  bill  an  elector 
could  not  vote  at  a  general  election  in  more  than  one  division 
of  a  parliamentary  borough.2  This  gave  rise  to  a  heated 
debate  as  to  what  actually  happened  at  the  Speaker's  Con- 
ference. The  supporters  of  the  amendment  and  the  oppon- 

1  Proportional  representation  had  been  included  in  the  bill,  but  when 
the  debate  on  the  Instructions  to  the  Boundary  Commission  took  place 
on  June  12,  the  vote  was  passed  that  the  Commission  work  on  the 
assumption  that  proportional  representation  was  not  a  part  of  the 
bill.  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94:  860. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  99 :  1086-89. 


•561]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8      155 

ents  of  plural  voting  maintained  that  they  had  agreed  to  the 
repeal  of  this  section  in  the  Act  of  1885  only  on  the  condi- 
tion that  proportional  representation  would  be  incorporated 
in  the  bill.  Since  this  had  now  been  stricken  from  the 
bill  they  maintained  that  the  compromise  had  .been  broken 
and  the  limitation  ought  to  be  reintroduced.  With  pro- 
portional representation  in  the  bill  only  15  seats  were 
affected,  but  with  it  eliminated  and  with  the  schedule  of 
redistribution,  there  were  2113  seats  affected. 

The  defenders  of  plural  voting  maintained  that  the  adop- 
tion of  proportional  representation  was  in  no  way  dependent 
upon  the  dual  vote  and  that  no  such  compromise  was  entered 
into ;  they  contended  that  the  retention  of  the  dual  vote  was 
part  of  the  compromise  over  the  complete  abolition  of  the 
plural  vote.  The  Government  was  asked  to  leave  this  an  open 
question  for  the  House  to  determine;  but  it  refused  and  the 
amendment  was  lost.  In  the  Lords  an  attempt  was  made  to 
make  a  similar  amendment,  but  there  it  also  failed.  The 
clause  remained  as  introduced  and  the  dual  vote  was  per- 
mitted to  'be  exercised  in  the  parliamentary  boroughs. 

By  its  terms  the  bill  simply  limited  women  to  two  votes 
in  different  constituencies  and  placed  no  restrictions  upon 
voting  twice  under  the  same  qualification.  This  gave 
women  more  latitude  than  men.  As  soon  as  the  clause 
came  up  for  discussion  an  amendment  was  introduced  which 
provided  that  no  person  could  vote  at  a  general  election  in 
more  than  two  constituencies.  The  Government  refused 
to  accept  this  as  contrary  to  the  principle  of  the  bill  because 
it  introduced  a  degree  of  plural  voting  in  that  it  would 
permit  a  man  to  vote  twice  on  the  same  qualification.1 
They  recognized,  however,  that  the  bill  violated  this  prin- 
ciple in  relation  to  women  and  the  Government  proposed  an 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  95 :  247. 


I56  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [362 

amendment  which  was  adopted.  This  amendment  provided 
that  a  woman  could  not  vote  in  more  than  one  constituency 
for  which  she  was  registered  by  virtue  of  her  own  or  her 
husband's  local  government  qualifications,  or  for  more  than 
one  other  constituency  for  which  she  might  otherwise 
qualify.  That  is,  the  only  way  in  which  a  woman  could 
qualify  for  a  dual  vote  was  to  possess  a  university  vote  in 
addition  either  to  residence  or  business  premises  qualifica- 
tion. 

The  bill  as  finally  agreed  upon  resulted  in  a  compromise 
over  plural  voting.  While  the  Liberals  obtained  the  aboli- 
tion of  unrestricted  plural  voting  they  were,  as  a  concession 
to  the  Conservatives,  forced  to  retain  the  dual  vote  even 
within  the  parliamentary  boroughs.  The  voter  was  en- 
titled to  one  vote  by  reason  of  his  residence  and  one  other 
vote  in  case  he  was  registered  either  for  business  premises 
or  as  a  university  voter.  But  these  qualifications  must  be 
in  different  parliamentary  divisions ;  otherwise  he  could  cast 
only  one  vote.  If  a  voter  had  a  residential  vote  in  one 
division  of  a  borough  and  a  business  vote  in  another  division 
of  the  same  borough,  then  he  would  be  entitled  to  two  votes. 
A  woman  registered  under  a  residence  or  business  premises 
qualification  could  obtain  a  second  vote  only  by  being  reg- 
istered under  a  university  qualification.  At  a  by-election  a 
voter  could  vote  in  any  constituency  where  he  was  registered 
as  an  elector. 

In  regard  to  local  government  the  bill  provided  that  an 
elector  could  vote  in  only  one  ward  or  division  of  a  local 
government  area  at  a  general  local  election.  But  the  right 
to  vote  in  any  ward  at  a  local  by-election  was  preserved. 
An  attempt  was  made  to  permit  the  dual  vote  to  be  exercised 
in  the  local  government  elections  just  as  in  parliamentary 
elections,  but  this  was  unsuccessful. 


363]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       157 

Provisions  as  to  Disqualifications 

The  bill  as  proposed  retained  most  of  the  old  poor  law 
disqualifications.  It  prohibited  a  person  from  voting  if  he 
had  received  poor  relief,  other  than  medical  relief,  or  other 
alms  for  an  aggregate  of  thirty  days  during  the  qualifying 
period.  As  soon  as  the  section  was  introduced  Mr.  White- 
house  moved  to  strike  out  this  disqualifying  provision.1 
During  the  course  of  the  debate  the  injustices  of  this  pro- 
vision were  pointed  out,  and  testimony  was  given  to  show 
that  it  in  no  way  deterred  people  from  seeking  poor  relief. 
It  was  emphasized  that  the  war  would  make  this  provision 
a  special  hardship  upon  many  old  people  and  particularly 
upon  women  who  had  been  deprived  of  their  support. 
Because  of  the  strong  opposition  from  all  parts  of  the 
House  the  Government  agreed  to  make  concessions  and  to 
introduce  a  remedial  amendment.  The  amendment,  which 
was  agreed  to,  provided  that,  "  A  person  should  not  be  dis- 
qualified from  being  registered  or  from  voting  as  a  parlia- 
mentary or  local  government  elector  by  reason  that  he  or 
some  person  for  whose  maintenance  he  is  responsible  has 
received  poor  relief  or  other  alms." 

The  points  causing  the  greatest  discussion  concerning 
disqualification  were  those  growing  out  of  the  war.  Mr. 
R.  McNeill  introduced  an  amendment  to  exclude  from  vot- 
ing privileges  all  persons  who  had  been  exempted  from 
military  service  on  account  of  conscientious  objections.2 
This  proposition  brought  forth  a  great  deal  of  protest,  al- 
though all  of  those  who  spoke  against  it  declared  they  had 
no  sympathy  whatever  with  the  views  held  by  the  con- 
scientious objectors.  The  opposition  was  based  on  broad 
lines  of  policy.  Lord  H.  Cecil  made  an  eloquent  speech 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  95 :  282-4. 
*Ibid.,  307-15. 


I58  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [364 

against  the  amendment  on  the  principle  of  toleration  towards 
religious  convictions  and  freedom  of  individual  conscience.1 
Sir  J.  Simon  in  opposing  the  amendment  argued  that  it  was 
a  most  untenable  proposition  for  Parliament  to  grant  ex- 
emption under  the  Military  Service  Act  and  afterward  to 
inflict  the  penalty  of  disfranchisement  upon  those  who 
availed  themselves  of  this  privilege.2  He  declared :  "  Once 
you  lay  it  down  that  some  people  are  to  be  deprived  of  their 
votes  because  of  the  opinions  they  express  and  act  upon, 
you  are  taking  a  backward  step  in  our  institutions,  the 
seriousness  of  which  can  hardly  be  measured.  ...  It  would  be 
a  very  evil  day  for  the  history  of  freedom  in  this  country  if 
we  ever  penalized  any  opinions,  however  absurd,  in  the 
matter  of  voting." 

Sir  G.  Cave,  while  expressing  great  personal  sympathy 
with  the  purpose  of  the  amendment,  insisted  that  the 
Government  had  to  look  at  the  amendment  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  success  of  the  bill.  Since  this  was  a  very  con- 
tentious provision  the  Government  refused  to  imperil  the 
final  passage  of  the  bill  by  its  consideration.  He  also 
pointed  out  the  injustice  of  the  provision  in  connection  with 
voters  who,  while  they  had  claimed  exemption  from  mili- 
tary service,  had  nevertheless  not  shrunk  from  danger  but 
had  risked  their  lives  for  the  state  and  had  rendered  most 
valuable  service  to  their  country  in  many  ways.  With  this 
pressure  from  the  Government  the  amendment  failed  by  a 
vote  of  71  to  17.*  A  further  amendment  was  adopted 
which  disqualified  all  but  British  subjects  from  the  parlia- 
mentary or  local  government  franchise. 

Under  the  existing  law  paid  election  agents,  messengers, 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  95 :  315-20. 

'Ibid.,  323-8- 

3  For  passage  of  this  amendment  on  report  stage,  cf.  infra,  pp.  182-5. 


365]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8      159 

clerks,  and  polling  agents  engaged  in  election  were  pro- 
hibited from  voting  at  the  election  because  of  their  paid 
services.1  In  the  report  stage  an  amendment  was  made 
which  removed  these  disqualifications  and  provided  that 
a  person  could  not  be  disqualified  from  voting  at  either 
parliamentary  or  local  government  elections  'because  he  was 
employed  for  payment  by  a  candidate,  so  long  as  the  em- 
ployment was  legal.2  Another  disqualification  was  removed 
by  the  Lords  and  accepted  by  the  Commons  which  pro- 
vided that  any  incapacity  of  a  peer  to  vote  at  an  election 
arising  from  his  status  as  a  peer  should  not  extend  to 
peeresses  in  their  own  right.3 

Registration 

The  registration  system  in  vogu.e  since  1832  had  been  a 
constant  source  of  party  intrigue,  excessive  expense,  and 
disfranchisement  It  was  the  duty  of  the  overseers  of  the 
poor  in  April  to  begin  the  preparation  of  the  register  from 
those  who  had  paid  the  poor  rates.4  Claims  to  be  placed 
upon  this  register  and  objections  to  names  placed  thereon 
were  heard  by  the  revising  barrister  in  September.  In 
practice  the  individual  voter  was  relieved  of  this  respon- 
sibility by  the  party  agents  who  were  very  energetic  in  get- 
ting the  register  revised  in  the  party  interest.  The  register 
thus  compiled  went  into  effect  on  January  i  and  continued 
for  one  year. 

The  proposed  bill  abolished  all  of  this  old  cumbrous 
and  intricate  machinery  and  substituted  a  simple  direct 
system.  It  provided  that  there  should  be  a  spring  and  an 

1  Anson,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  125. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  99 :  1277-82. 

3 Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27:  770-1. 

4  Anson,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  134-36. 


!6o  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [366 

autumn  register  prepared  each  year.1  The  qualifying  period 
of  the  spring  register  ended  on  January  15,  and  the  register 
went  into  force  on  April  15.  The  qualifying  period  of 
the  autumn  register  ended  on  July  15,  and  the  register 
went  into  force  on  October  15.  The  duty  of  preparing 
the  register  and  entering  on  it  the  names  of  all  persons 
who  under  the  law  werei  entitled  to  vote,  either  as 
parliamentary  or  local  government  electors,  was  placed 
upon  the  clerk  of  the  county  council,  and  upon  the  town 
clerk  of  the  borough.  Thus  the  revising  barrister  and  his 
court  were  entirely  eliminated. 

This  radical  change  was  not  to  be  accomplished  without 
a  protest  in  favor  of  the  old  system.  Sir  F.  Banbury 
moved  an  amendment  which  would  place  a  check  upon  the 
registration  officer  by  requiring  a  revision  of  the  register 
to  be  made  by  a  revising  officer.  He  argued  that  such  an 
important  political  matter  could  not  safely  be  left  to  the 
discretion  of  one  officer  and  it  was  necessary  to  have  some 
kind  of  outside  check  upon  him.2  It  was  the  chief  purpose 
of  his  provision  of  the  bill  to  eliminate  the  machinery  for 
revision  which  had  been  made  necessary  by  the  complicated 
nature  of  the  franchise  laws.  With  the  simplification  of 
the  franchise  the  questions  to  be  determined  would  be  largely 
questions  of  fact  rather  than  of  law.  If  the  revising 
barristers  were  retained,  it  would  mean  that  the  whole 
existing  party  machinery  would  remain  intact.  With  the 
weight  of  the  Government  against  this  amendment  it  was 
defeated. 

Under  the  old  system  the  revision  of  the  register  was 
first  made  by  the  revising  barrister  and  then  an  appeal  could 
be  taken  to  the  Queen's  Bench  Division  of  the  High  Court. 

1  It  was  provided  that  in  Ireland  the  register  be  prepared  only  once 
a  year. 

'  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  95:  434-5. 


367]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       161 

The  bill  provided  that  the  register  should  be  compiled  by  the 
registration  officer  and  that  appeal  from  his  decision  could 
be  taken  to  the  county  court.  Appeal  could  be  carried  from 
this  court  to  the  Court  of  Appeal.  The  appeal,  however, 
could  be  taken  to  the  county  court  only  on  a  point  of  law; 
on  a  question  of  fact  the  decision  of  the  registration  officer 
was  final.  It  was  conceded  that  this  placed  too  much 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  registration  officer  and  the  bill  was 
so  amended  as  to  permit  appeal  on  any  question  to  the 
county  court,  provided  the  claimant  or  objector  had  first 
appeared  before  the  registration  officer  and  had  been  heard 
by  him.  The  final  appeal  from  the  county  court  to  the 
Court  of  Appeal  was  to  be  on  points  of  law  only. 

These  provisions  greatly  simplified  the  whole  process  of 
registration  and  placed  the  duty  of  preparing  the  register 
upon  a  registration  officer  of  the  government  rather  than 
leaving  its  preparation  to  party  agents  working  in  the  in- 
terests of  their  own  party.  The  fact  that  the  franchise 
qualifications  were  so  greatly  simplified  would  also  largely 
eliminate  the  litigation  growing  out  of  claims  for  registra- 
tion. 

Expenses  of  Registration 

Heretofore  the  expenses  of  registration  were  borne 
equally  in  the  case  of  the  county  by  the  county  fund  and 
the  poor  rates  of  the  parish,  and  in  the  case  of  the  borough 
by  the  borough  fund  and  the  poor  rates.1  Half  of  the 
expenses  of  the  revising  barrister  were  borne  by  the  Im- 
perial Exchequer  and  half  by  the  county  authorities.2  The 
bill  provided  that  the  total  expense  in  connection  with  the 
registration  should  be  borne  in  the  first  instance  by  the 
county  or  borough  council.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  Treasury 

*Halsbury,  op.  cit.,  p.  240. 

1  County  Electors  Act,  1888  (51  &  52  Viet,  c.  10),  s.  9. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [368 

to  frame  a  scale  of  maximum  expenses  and  if  the  amount 
expended  did  not  exceed  this  the  Treasury  would  refund  to 
the  county  or  borough  council,  from  money  provided  by 
Parliament,  one-half  of  the  amount  expended.  If  the 
registration  officer  exceeded  the  maximum,  the  question 
would  be  referred  to  the  Local  Government  Board.  The 
decision  of  the  Board  was  final  and  unless  the  amount  spent 
in  excess  of  the  maximum  was  sanctioned  by  the  Board  it 
must  be  borne  by  the  county  or  borough  council.  No 
debate  occurred  on  the  principle  of  this  section  and  only 
minor  amendments  were  made. 

Proportional  Representation 

The  question  of  proportional  representation  proved  to  be 
one  of  the  most  thorny  problems  of  the  whole  bill ;  indeed  at 
times  it  threatened  to  break  up  the  coalition  and  to  endanger 
the  success  of  the  bill.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Conference 
as  a  compromise  measure  and  recommended  unanimously 
in  their  report.  When  the  report  of  the  Conference  was 
under  consideration  Mr.  Lloyd  George  expressed  his 
ignorance  of  the  scheme  and  asserted  that  it  was  on  a  dif- 
ferent basis  from  the  other  recommendations.1  When  the 
bill  was  introduced,  although  it  was  incorporated  as  part  of 
the  measure,  it  was  with  the  definite  understanding  that  it 
was  to  be  left  to  the  free  vote  of  the  House  just  as  the 
question  of  women's  suffrage  was  left. 

The  discussion  of  the  question  came  up  first  on  June  12, 
while  the  House  was  debating  the  Instructions  to  the 
Boundary  Commission.  After  considerable  discussion  at 
that  time  it  was  finally  agreed  by  vote  of  149  to  141  that  the 
Commission  was  to  act  on  the  assumption  that  proportional 
representation  would  not  be  adopted.2  An  analysis  of  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  92:  492. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  94:  860. 


369]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       163 

vote  on  these  instructions  shows  a  rather  general  division 
within  the  parties,  although  the  Unionists  gave  a  majority 
of  47  against  proportional  representation  and  the  Liberals 
a  majority  of  23  for  it,  the  Labor  party  being  almost  equally 
divided.  Most  of  the  London  members  voted  against  it.1 

The  question  of  proportional  representation  was  brought 
squarely  before  the  House  by  the  provision  in  the  bill  that, 
"  In  a  constituency  returning  three  or  more  members,  any 
election  of  the  full  number  of  members  shall  be  according 
to  the  principle  of  proportional  representation,  each  elector 
having  one  transferable  vote  as  defined  by  this  act."  The 
rejection  of  the  clause  was  moved  by  Mr.  Montague  Barlow 
on  the  principle  that  it  would  strengthen  the  position  of 
the  party  caucus;  that  it  would  create  large  constituencies; 
and  that  it  would  increase  party  expenses  which  would  give 
a  decided  advantage  to  the  strictly  party  candidate.2  In 
defense  of  the  system  it  was  urged  that  the  increased  cost 
of  election  could  be  solved  by  limiting  the  expenses  of 
each  candidate.  The  chief  argument  for  the  proposal  was 
that  it  would  permit  representation  of  minorities  and  would 
make  possible  a  more  equitable  reflection  of  public  opinion.3 

When  the  vote  was  taken  that  proportional  representation 
be  retained  as  part  of  the  bill,  it  failed  by  vote  of  169  ayes 

1  The  parties  voted  as  follows : 

Against  For 

P.  R.  P.  R. 

Liberal 54  77 

Unionist    85  38 

Labor 10  12 

Irish  14 

149  141 

Daily  Telegraph,  June  18,  1917,  p.  6. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  95:  1134-40. 
*Ibid.,  1168-76. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [370 

to  201  noes.  On  the  whole  the  debate  showed  that  little 
genuine  interest  was  taken  in  the  subject  at  the  time.  This 
virtually  meant  the  defeat  of  the  application  of  proportional 
representation  to  the  bill  with  the  exception  of  the  possibility 
of  its  being  applied  to  the  university  constituencies.  The 
Liberals  still  gave  a  majority  for  and  the  Unionists 
against  proportional  representation.  The  London  members 
were  again  largely  responsible  for  its  defeat.  Of  the 
London  Unionists  23  voted  against  and  only  2  for  it,  while 
the  London  Liberals  gave  13  votes  in  the  negative  and  6  in 
the  affirmative.1 

Alternative  Voting 

After  the  committee  had  rejected  the  principle  of  pro- 
portional representation  the  next  question  considered  when 
they  resumed  the  discussion  of  the  bill  on  August  9,  was  the 
alternative  vote.  The  bill  as  originally  drawn  had  pro- 
vided for  certain  multiple  constituencies  in  which  propor- 
tional representation  was  to  be  used.  Where  the  single 
member  constituencies  were  retained  and  where  there  were 
more  than  two  candidates,  the  election  was  to  be  on  the 
principle  of  alternative  voting.  When  Mr.  Burdett-Coutts 
moved  to  strike  out  this  clause,  it  led  to  a  debate  upon  the 
merits  of  alternative  voting  in  which  many  ingenious  hypo- 
thetical illustrations  were  given.2  In  the  main  those  who 

1  The  parties  voted  as  follows : 

For  Against 

Unionist  43  137 

Liberal 88  60 

Labor 13  6 

National  27 

171  203 

This  includes  the  Tellers.    The  Times,  July  6,  1917,  p.  7. 
*  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  97:  607-11. 


371  ]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8      165 

supported  the  principle  urged  that  it  was  necessary  because 
of  the  appearance  of  a  third  party  as  an  important  political 
factor  and  that  in  the  three-cornered  fights  under  the  exist- 
ing system  a  minority  candidate  was  often  elected.  In 
order  to  prevent  this  they  argued  that  both  first  and  second 
choices  ought  to  be  possible  in  order  that  the  minority  party 
would  not  entirely  throw  away  its  vote  but  would  still 
effectively  influence  the  election.  The  opponents  main^ 
tained  that  this  would  lead  to  a  large  increase  of  candidates 
and  a  complication  of  the  issues  of  elections,  which  were 
evils  to  be  avoided.  Mr.  Dickinson  argued  that  since  pro- 
portional representation  had  been  defeated,  it  was  all  the 
more  necessary  that  this  proposal  be  retained.  Sir  G.  Cave 
announced  that  the  Government  would  permit  an  open  vote 
on  the  question  although  he  expressed  his  personal  disap- 
proval of  the  scheme  and  suggested  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
adopted  until  the  new  franchise  system  had  been  given  a 
trial.1  On  division  alternative  voting  was  retained  by  the 
narrowest  possible  majority,  ayes  125,  and  noes  124.  It 
was  the  first  partisan  vote  that  had  thus  far  been  cast  on 
the  bill.2  The  Unionists  were  almost  unanimously  against 
this  proposal  because  it  meant  that  they  would  lose  many 
minority  seats  which  they  had  been  able  to  retain  because 
of  the  division  of  the  more  liberal  forces  between  the 
Liberal,  Labor,  and  Socialist  parties. 

The  next  type  of  so-called  "  fancy  "  vote  to  be  discussed 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  97 : 642-5. 
1  An  analysis  of  the  vote  shows : 

For  Against 

Liberal 98  13 

Labor 17 

National  10 

Unionist  2  113 

127  126 

This  includes  the  Tellers.     The  Times,  August  II,  1917,  p.  7. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [372 

was  in  connection  with  the  university  constituencies.  The 
bill  provided  that,  "  At  a  contested  election  of  a  university 
constituency,  where  there  are  two  members  to  be  elected, 
no  person  shall  vote  for  more  than  one  candidate."  This 
applied  to  only  three  Universities,  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and 
Dublin,  with  a  possibility  of  different  treatment  with  regard 
to  the  latter.  The  university  vote  had  been  retained  by  the 
Conference  on  a  compromise  over  the  plural  vote,  but  there 
was  another  point  to  be  considered.  The  university  vote 
was  invariably  Conservative  and  the  Liberals  insisted  on 
this  clause  in  the  bill  which  would  limit  each  elector  to  one 
vote  in  the  larger  university  constituencies.  The  Unionists 
were  naturally  very  indignant  over  this  restriction.  It 
meant  that  as  a  price  for  retaining  the  university  vote  they 
would  lose  part  of  the  university  representation  which  they 
had  previously  been  able  to  elect.  The  rejection  of  the 
clause  was  moved  by  Sir  F.  Banbury.1  The  Government 
came  to  the  support  of  the  clause  and  Sir  G.  Cave  announced 
that  if  this  provision  were  stricken  from  the  bill,  it  would 
mean  the  defeat  of  university  representation.  With  this 
pressure  on  the  part  of  the  Government  the  provision  was 
retained  by  a  vote  of  133  ayes  to  66  noes. 

The  clause,  however,  did  not  entirely  meet  the  situation 
for  it  made  no  provision  for  the  method  of  voting  in  con- 
stituencies which  might  have  three  or  more  representatives. 
This  was  possible  because  it  had  been  agreed  to  increase  the 
university  representation.  An  amendment  was,  therefore, 
introduced  which  provided  that  in  a  university  constituency 
where  there  were  two  or  more  candidates  any  election  of 
the  full  number  must  be  according  to  the  principle  of  pro- 
portional representation.  This  led  again  to  a  debate  over 
the  principle  of  proportional  representation.2  The  necessity 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  97:  653-5. 
9  Ibid.,  673-700. 


373]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8      167 

of  providing  a  method  of  voting  for  the  larger  university 
constituencies,  and  the  feeling  that  proportional  representa- 
tion should  not  be  entirely  eliminated  from  the  provisions 
of  the  bill,  together  with  the  desire  for  an  experiment  with 
proportional  representation  of  limited  scope,  caused  greater 
unity  of  action  and  the  amendment  was  agreed  to  without 
division.  As  the  bill  passed  the  committee  the  principle  of 
the  alternative  vote  had  been  adopted  for  single  member 
constituencies  and  proportional  representation  had  been 
retained  only  as  applied  to  university  constituencies  with 
two  or  more  candidates.  This  did  not  dispose  of  the  ques- 
tion; later  it  threatened  the  success  of  the  whole  bill.1 

Polls  to  be  held  on  one  day  at  a  General  Election 

Under  the  existing  system  the  excitement  of  English  elec- 
tions extended  over  a  period  of  from  one  to  three  weeks. 
Great  latitude  was  given  to  the  returning  officers  in  regard 
to  fixing  days.  With  certain  limitations  they  chose  the 
-dates  for  giving  notice  of  election,  and  they  fixed  the  dates 
for  nominations  and  the  day  of  the  poll.2  This  holding 
of  elections  on  different  days  was  bound  up  with  the  con- 
troversy of  plural  voting.  If  the  plural  voter  were  able  to 
exercise  all  his  votes  he  must  obviously  have  sufficient  time 
to  do  so.  It  had  also  been  of  great  electioneering  value  to 
the  party  that  happened  to  be  successful  in  the  first  polls  of 
election.  With  the  abolition  of  the  plural  vote,  even  though 
the  dual  vote  was  retained,  the  argument  for  the  old  system 
was  largely  gone. 

According  to  the  bill  all  the  polls  in  case  of  a  general1 
election  were  to  be  held  on  the  same  day.  The  day  for 

1  The  further  stages  are  not  discussed  at  this  point  because  of  the 
^complications  which  arose  before  it  came  up  again.  Cf.  infra,  p.  180. 

'Anson,  op.  cit.,  voL  i,  pp.  137-9. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [374 

nominations  was  fixed  as  the  eighth  day  after  the  date  of 
the  Royal  proclamation  declaring  the  calling  of  the  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  polls,  if  necessary,  were  to  take  place  on  the 
ninth  day  after  the  date  of  nomination.  The  rejection  of 
this  proposal  was  moved  by  Sir  F.  Banbury  on  the  grounds 
that  it  would  be  a  severe  test  upon  the  police  to  preserve 
order  at  all  the  polls  on  the  same  day,  and  since  only  the 
dual  vote  was  retained  an  elector  ought  to  have  the  op- 
portunity of  casting  both  votes.1  Sir  G.  Cave  was  inclined 
to  make  some  concessions  on  this  point,  but  he  met  with 
such  vigorous  opposition  from  the  House  that  he  withdrew 
his  suggestion  and  the  provisions  of  the  bill  were  accepted 
as  introduced.  Another  clause  was  later  inserted  which 
provided  that  in  by-elections  the  returning  officer  might 
fix  the  date  for  the  poll  not  less  than  four  days  nor  more 
than  eight  days  after  the  day  fixed  for  nomination.  A 
great  many  bills  had  been  introduced  into  Parliament  at- 
tempting to  bring  about  the  single-day  election  reform.  As 
embodied  in  this  bill  it  passed  with  very  little  opposition. 
In  operation  it  will  greatly  reduce  the  tension  and  excite- 
ment of  the  general  election  period. 

Penalty  for  Illegal  Voting 

The  bill  provided  that  at  a  general  election  if  a  person 
voted  for  more  constituencies  than  he  was  entitled  to  vote 
for  or  even  asked  for  a  ballot  or  voting  paper  for  the  pur- 
pose of  voting,  he  would  be  guilty  of  illegal  practice,  for 
which,  according  to  the  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Pre- 
vention Act  of  1883,  the  penalty  was  a  fine  of  £100  and 
deprivation  of  the  right  to  vote  for  five  years.  There  was 
no  general  discussion  upon  this  section  and  it  was  adopted 
with  only  a  slight  modification. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  97:  713-4. 


375]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       169 
Voting  by  Absent  Electors 

An  entirely  new  feature  of  English  election  proce- 
dure was  involved  in  the  attempt  to  establish  a  system 
whereby  absent  electors  could  vote.  The  agitation  to  en- 
able soldiers  and  sailors  to  vote  during  the  war  had  pre- 
cipitated the  whole  franchise  question.1  In  order  to  meet 
this  situation  the  bill  provided  that  electors  could  be  placed 
on  the  absent  voters  list,2  who  by  reason  of  their  occupation, 
service,  or  employment  would  be  debarred  from  voting  at 
parliamentary  elections.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  return- 
ing officers  to  send  the  ballot  papers  to  all  persons  at 
the  address  given  on  this  list.  The  ballot  paper,  marked 
by  the  absent  voter  and  accompanied  by  the  proper  declara- 
tion of  identity,  would  be  counted  by  the  returning  officer, 
if  received  before  the  close  of  the  polls.  On  investigation 
the  Government  discovered,  as  announced  by  Sir.  G.  Cave, 
that  because  of  the  limited  time  between  the  canvassing  and 
polling  day  only  about  twenty  per  cent  of  the  soldiers 
abroad  would  be  able  to  receive  their  ballots  and  return 
them  before  the  close  of  the  polls.3  When  the  question 
came  up  again  on  the  report  stage,  the  Government  pro- 
posed two  schemes  in  order  to  meet  the  difficulties.  The 
first,  which  was  adopted,  provided  that  in  order  to  allow] 
for  greater  time  for  receiving  the  ballots  from  the  absent 
voters  the  count  of  the  ballots  could,  by  Order  in  Council, 
be  postponed  for  eight  days  after  the  close  of  the  poll.4  All 
ballots  received  up  to  the  day  on  which  the  ballots  were 
counted  were  to  be  included.  There  being  a  strong  objec- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  124. 

JIt  was  the  duty  of  the  registration  officer  to  place  all  naval  and 
military  absent  voters  on  the  absent  voters  list  without  them  making 
claim.  All  other  voters  had  to  make  claim  to  be  placed  on  this  list. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  97:  1 193-9- 

'Ibid.,  vol.  08:  953-5- 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [376 

tion  to  postponing  the  announcement  of  the  results  of  an 
election  for  eight  days,  an  amendment  was  adopted  which 
limited  this  provision  to  the  duration  of  the  war  and  twelve 
months  thereafter. 

The  second  proposal  for  dealing  with  the  absent  voters 
was  the  system  of  voting  by  proxy.  The  provision  as  in- 
troduced was  limited  in  its  duration  to  twelve  months  after 
the  end  of  the  war  and  was  to  be  brought  in  force  by  Order 
in  Council.  It  was  to  apply  only  to  absent  registered 
electors  who  were  soldiers,  sailors,  merchant  seamen,  pilots 
or  fishermen  who  were  at  sea  or  serving  abroad  at  such  a 
great  distance  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  them  to  return 
their  votes  by  post  in  time  to  have  them  counted  even  with 
the  extended  period.  Under  such  conditions  they  were 
entitled  to  appoint  a  proxy  and  vote  by  proxy  at  a  parlia- 
mentary election.  If  they  had  chosen  to  vote  by  proxy  no 
absent  voter's  ballot  was  to  be  sent  to  them.  An  attempt 
was  immediately  made  by  Mr.  Peto  to  remove  the  limita- 
tion upon  its  duration  and  make  it  a  permanent  part  of  the 
electoral  system.1  So  vigorous  was  the  protest  against  any 
limitation  that  the  Government  consented  to  make  conces- 
sions and  the  limitation  was  stricken  out  without  a  vote. 

The  bill  provided  that  the  proxy  paper  was  to  be  issued 
by  the  registration  officer  and  the  proxy  named  thereon 
either  by  the  elector  directly  or  by  his  authorization. 
Twelve  months  after  the  termination  of  the  war  the  proxy 
papers  would  have  to  be  renewed  every  six  months.  After 
proxy  papers  were  issued  to  an  elector,  unless  they  were 
properly  cancelled,  he  could  not  vote  in  any  other  manner 
during  their  continuance.  Persons  entitled  to  be  appointed 
as  proxies  were  the  wife,  husband,  parent,  brother,  sister 
of  the  elector,  or  a  parliamentary  elector  from  the  constitu- 
ency, or  one  of  the  constituencies,  in  which  the  elector  was 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  98 :  978-80. 


377]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8       171 

registered.  A  voter  could  not  appoint  more  than  one 
person  as  his  proxy  in  the  same  constituency  and  in  no 
case  could  he  appoint  proxies  for  more  than  two  constitu- 
encies nor  could  one  person  act  as  proxy  for  more  than  two 
electors  unless  the  proxy  were  husband,  wife,  parent  or 
sister  of  the  absent  voter.  Penalties  were  attached  for  the 
illegal  exercise  of  this  right. 

Deposit  by  Candidates  at  Parliamentary  Elections 

The  bill  provided  that  a  candidate  for  parliamentary  elec- 
tion must  desposit  the  sum  of  £150  with  the  returning 
officer.  It  further  provided  that  if  a  candidate  did  not 
poll  one-eighth  of  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  or  in  case 
of  a  constituency  having  more  than  two  candidates,  one- 
eighth  of  the  number  of  votes  polled  divided  by  the  number 
of  members  to  be  elected,  the  sum  deposited  by  him  would 
be  forfeited  to  the  government.  Otherwise  it  was  returned 
to  the  candidate.  An  amendment  was  accepted  which  pro- 
vided that  in  case  of  a  general  election  where  a  candidate 
was  nominated  in  more  than  one  constituency  he  could 
not  recover  his  deposit  in  more  than  one  of  these  constituen- 
cies. There  was  no  objection  to  this  clause  which  was  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  freak  candidates  being  nominated 
in  several  comstituencies. 

Returning  Officers 

The  bill  provided  that  the  sheriff  should  be  the  returning 
officer  for  the  county,  and  the  mayor  of  the  borough  or  the 
chairman  of  the  council  the  returning  officer  for  the 
borough,  in  case  the  parliamentary  boroughs  were  cotermin- 
ous with  the  municipal  borough.1  The  clause  in  effect 
retained  the  system  which  had  been  in  vogue  since  1832. 
Several  attempts  were  made  to  retain  for  the  newly  created 

1  This  does  not  apply  to  university  constituencies. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [378 

parliamentary  constituencies  the  same  returning  officers  who 
had  served  under  the  old  system  in  order  to  preserve  the 
historic  continuity.  But  the  Home  Secretary  refused  to 
make  exceptions  for  reasons  of  historical  significance  and 
the  section  was  adopted  without  material  alteration.  A 
later  section  provided  that  the  real  duties  of  the  returning 
officers  should  be  performed  by  the  registration  officer  as 
acting  returning  officer. 

The  bill  provided  that  all  legitimate  expenses  of  the  re- 
turning officer  should  be  paid  by  the  Treasury  out  of  money 
provided  by  Parliament.  This  was  safeguarded  by  fixing 
a  scale  of  maximum  expenses  with  the  additional  power  of 
reviewing  and  reducing  all  expense  charges.  Points  of 
controversy  could  be  appealed  to  the  court  for  final  settle- 
ment. After  minor  objections  the  clause  was  adopted. 

Election  Expenses 

The  scale  of  election  expenses  permitted  to  candidates  by 
the  bill  greatly  reduced  the  costs  of  elections  as  allowed 
under  the  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practice  Prevention  Act  of 
1883.  The  schedule  limited  the  amount  to  'be  expended  in 
the  counties  to  seven  pence  for  each  elector  on  the  register 
and  in  the  boroughs  to  five  pence  for  each  elector  on  the 
register.  Although  the  electorate  was  to  be  doubled  by  the 
bill  yet  the  actual  amount  of  expense  to  the  candidate  would 
be  considerably  less  than  formerly.  It  was  estimated  that 
in  the  county  with  20,000  electors,  under  the  new  provisions, 
the  amount  allowed  for  expenditures  would  be  £583  6s.  8d. 
while  under  the  old  law  it  would  have  amounted  to  £1,790. 
In  a  borough  of  20,000  electors  the  expense  would 
ibe  £416  135.  4d.  as  compared  with  £920  under  the  old 
schedule.1  In  addition  to  this  the  candidate  was  allowed, 
for  his  personal  expense,  £100,  but  if  this  amount  were 

'Seager,  op.  cit.,  pp.  111-12. 


379]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8      173 

exceeded  the  candidate  had  to  supply  a  detailed  account  of 
the  excess  to  his  agent  and  include  it  in  his  return.  This 
amount  did  not  include  the  election  agent's  fee  provided  it 
did  not  exceed  £75  for  county  or  £50  for  borough  elections. 
In  committee  under  the  discussion  of  the  schedule  an  attempt 
was  made  to  increase  this  fee  but  it  failed.  Attempts  were 
also  made  to  exclude  the  salary  of  the  election  agents  from 
the  election  expenses  but  the  Government  refused  to  grant 
such  concessions. 

The  bill  also  provided  that  each  duly  nominated  candidate 
for  a  parliamentary  election  was  entitled  to  send,  free  of 
any  charge  for  postage,  to  each  registered  elector  of  the 
constituency  one  postal  communication  not  exceeding  one 
ounce  in  weight.  This  was  limited  in  the  committee  to 
material  relating  to  the  election  only  and  the  maximum 
amount  permitted  was  increased  to  two  ounces.  It  was 
estimated  that  in  a  constituency  of  20,000  electors  this 
would  be  a  saving  of  £46  135.  to  the  candidate.  During 
the  committee  stage  an  amendment  was  made  which  gave 
candidates  the  right  to  use  school  houses  during  proper 
hours  provided  they  paid  the  necessary  costs  incurred  by 
the  school  authorities  and  any  damages  that  might  result 
from  such  meetings.  This  legalized  a  practice  which  had 
hitherto  been  permitted  to  certain  candidates  at  the  discre- 
tion of  the  managers. 

Another  section  attempted  to  restrict  the  expenses  by  un- 
authorized persons  on  behalf  of  a  candidate.  It  provided 
that  no  expense  could  be  incurred  by  any  person,  except  the 
candidate's  authorized  agent,  on  account  of  holding  public 
meetings,  or  issuing  advertisements,  circulars  or  publica- 
tions for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  election  of  any 
candidate  at  a  parliamentary  election  unless  this  were 
authorized  in  writing  by  the  agent  and  the  expenses  were 
duly  returned  as  a  part  of  the  candidate's  expenses.  There 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [380 

was  no  opposition  to  the  general  principle  and  with  minor 
changes  the  section  was  adopted. 

Application  of  the  Bill  to  Ireland 

The  Speaker's  Conference  had  recommended  that  the 
franchise  reform  should  apply  to  Ireland  but  it  had  made  no 
recommendation  in  regard  to  the  inclusion  of  Ireland  in 
a  scheme  of  redistribution.  The  Government  in  framing 
the  bill  had  included  Ireland  in  the  franchise  reform  but 
had  excluded  it  from  redistribution.  On  October  17,  Sir 
J.  Lonsdale  introduced  an  amendment  which  provided  that 
the  redistribution  of  seats  apply  to  Ireland  as  well  as 
to  Great  Britain.1  This  led  to  a  general  discussion  of 
Ireland  in  relation  to  the  bill.  The  question  of  the  redis- 
tribution of  the  number  of  seats  between  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  was  not  introduced  but  only  the  redistribution  of 
the  seats  in  Ireland.  Sir  J.  Lonsdale  stated  that  there 
were  gross  inequalities  between  the  various  constituencies 
in  Ireland  and  these  would  be  greatly  increased  by  the 
extension  of  the  franchise.  He  claimed  that  Ulster  should 
have  at  least  three  more  members  on  any  fair  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. 

In  stating  the  policy  of  the  Government  Sir  G.  Cave  said 
that  it  had  followed  the  recommendations  of  the  Conference 
and  had  included  Ireland  in  the  franchise  reform  but  had 
left  the  question  of  redistribution  for  the  House  to  decide. 
He  recognized  the  injustice  of  extending  the  franchise  in 
Ireland  and  at  the  same  time  perpetuating  the  existing 
inequalities  of  representation,  and  he  suggested  that  the 
Committee  could  direct  the  Government  to  appoint  an 
Irish  commission  to  deal  with  the  Irish  problem.  They 
could  make  their  report  in  time  to  have  the  schedule  included 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  98:  95. 


381]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       175 

in  the  bill.1  If  this  were  not  done  the  only  alternative  was 
to  exclude  Ireland  from  the  bill.  This  called  forth  a  vigor- 
ous speech  from  Mr.  Dillon  who  said  that  any  attempt  to 
include  Ireland  within  the  provisions  of  redistribution  would 
introduce  the  whole  Irish  controversy  upon  the  floor  of  the 
House.  This  would  only  accentuate  the  difficulties  between 
the  various  sections  of  Ireland  because  it  would  mean  that 
some  parts  would  gain  representation  at  the  expense  of 
other  sections.  He  also  maintained  that  this  would  be  a 
distinct  breach  of  faith  with  Ireland  and  a  departure  from 
the  Speaker's  recommendations. 

The  Government  was  in  a  very  difficult  position  in  regard 
to  the  Irish  situation.  The  Home  Rule  Bill  which  provided 
for  the  reduction  of  the  representation  of  Ireland  from 
103  to  42  members  had  not  come  into  operation  and  it 
looked  as  though  it  would  not  because  of  the  opposition 
from  Ulster.  If  redistribution  were  applied  to  Ireland  on 
the  basis  of  her  old  representation,  it  would  make  one  rep- 
resentative for  every  40,000  or  50,000  people  while  in  Great 
Britain  it  was  on  a  basis  of  one  representative  for  70,000. 
It  would  also  make  it  appear  that  there  was  a  finality  about 
the  existing  status  and  that  the  Government  did  not  pro- 
pose to  act.  To  complicate  the  situation  further  a  conven- 
tion was  in  session  at  the  time  which  it  was  hoped  would 
offer  a  solution  for  the  whole  Irish  question  and  it  was  felt 
that  it  was  inadvisable  to  hamper  their  deliberations  in  any 
way.  In  view  of  these  facts  and  the  rather  strong  feeling 
exhibited  by  both  sides  the  Government  declined  to  make 
any  decision  on  the  Irish  question  but  promised  to  permit 
the  question  to  be  raised  at  a  later  stage  of  the  bill. 

The  next  day  when  the  clause  relating  to  the  application 
of  the  bill  to  Ireland  was  introduced  Sir  J.  Lonsdale  moved 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  98: 103-6. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [382 

another  amendment  which  entirely  excluded  Ireland  from 
the  scope  of  the  bill.1  His  object  was  not  really  to  exclude 
Ireland  from  the  bill  but  to  get  it  included  in  redistribu- 
tion. The  Government  insisted  upon  the  defeat  of  this 
amendment  and  announced  that  it  would  include  Ireland 
within  the  scope  of  redistribution.  Mr.  O'Brien  character- 
ized the  policy  of  the  Government  as  downright  treachery 
and  Mr.  Dillon  again  warned  the  Government  that  this 
would  stir  up  the  whole  controversy  in  Ireland  which  the 
Nationalists  were  attempting  to  settle  by  constitutional 
means.  The  amendment  was  defeated.2  The  clause  as 
adopted  provided  that  there  would  be  but  one  register  a  year 
instead  of  two  as  in  England.  Certain  alternations  were 
made  in  the  machinery  of  the  bill  so  that  it  would  suit  the 
local  administration  of  the  act  to  Ireland. 

Application  of  the  Bill  to  Scotland 

'An  important  question  was  raised  when  the  section  which 
dealt  with  the  application  of  the  act  to  Scotland  was  under 
consideration.  The  Speaker's  Conference  made  no  recom- 
mendations in  regard  to  the  local  franchise  of  Scotland. 
In  the  bill  as  presented  by  the  Government  no  exception  was 
made  and  the  local  government  franchise  applied  to  Scotland 
as  well  as  to  England.  This  was  strenuously  objected  to 
by  Scotland  because  the  policy  of  Scotland  had  always  been 
more  liberal  in  regard  to  the  local  franchise  than  was  the 
case  in  England.  In  order  to  deal  with  this  problem  the 
Government  introduced  amendments  which  preserved  for 
Scotland  the  local  government  franchise  practically  as  it 
had  been.  This  led  to  another  difficulty  in  connection  with 
women's  suffrage.  Since  the  parliamentary  franchise  for 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  98 :  298-301. 

2  For  later  development  of  controversy,  cf.  infra,  p.  185. 


383]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       177 

women  was  based  upon  the  local  government  franchise,  the 
basis  of  women's  suffrage  in  Scotland  would  be  much 
broader  than  in  England.  In  order  to  meet  this  situation 
an  amendment  was  adopted  which  provided  that  in  Scotland 
a  woman  could  vote  in  local  elections  on  the  same  basis  as 
though  she  were  a  man  but  she  could  exercise  the  parlia- 
mentary franchise  only  on  like  conditions  as  in  England. 
Minor  modifications  were  made  to  suit  the  administration  of 
the  act  to  local  conditions  in  Scotland  such  as  making  the 
registration  officer  the  assessor  and  the  returning  officer  the 
sheriff. 

Redistribution 

The  question  of  redistribution  was  thoroughly  con- 
sidered by  the  Speaker's  Conference.  It  was  recognized  by 
all  that  redistribution  must  accompany  any  electoral  reform. 
In  order  to  facilitate  this  work  the  Government  on  May  14, 
1917,  appointed  a  Boundary  Commission  which  was  to  com- 
plete its  work  by  the  time  the  committee  stage  of  the  bill 
was  reached.  The  Instructions  issued  to  the  Commission 
by  the  Government  provided  that  the  number  in  the  House 
of  Commons  remain  substantially  the  same.  The  standard 
unit  of  population  for  each  member  was  70,000.  This 
could  be  departed  from  under  certain  conditions.  A  county 
or  borough  with  a  population  of  between  50,000  and  70,000 
was  permitted  to  have  separate  representation.  A  county 
or  borough  which  had  two  members  was  not  to  lose  a 
member  if  the  defect  in  population  was  not  more  than 
20,000.  The  City  of  London  was  granted  some  concessions 
and  was  allowed  to  have  two  members.  These  Instructions 
were  debated  by  the  House  on  June  n  and  were  only 
slightly  modified.1  An  attempt  was  made  by  the  agricul- 
tural interests  to  get  an  amendment  adopted  which  would 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  94:  635-95. 


I78  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [384 

require  that  attention  be  paid  to  areas  as  well  as  to  popula- 
tion in  the  readjustment  of  boundary  lines  so  that  the 
agricultural  districts  would  not  suffer  from  redistributiorL 
The  Government  refused  to  grant  any  concession  on  this 
point.  On  recommendation  of  the  Government,  however, 
some  concessions  were  granted  and  some  latitude  was  given 
the  Commission  to  depart  from  the  Instructions  where  it 
seemed  advisable.  They  were  also  to  have  regard  to  the 
electorate  rather  than  to  population  wherever  they  thought 
the  electorate  was  abnormally  large. 

The  Commission  made  their  report  on  September  27,  and 
it  was  embodied  in  the  schedule.  It  provided  for  a  total 
increase  of  thirty-four  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.1 
There  was  some  criticism  of  this  increase  but  the  Govern- 
ment pointed  out  that  this  was  due  largely  to  the  attempt 
to  follow  out  the  changes  in  Instructions  made  by  the 
House.  In  connection  with  the  redistribution  of  London, 
minor  amendments  were  accepted  concerning  boundary 
limits,  but  no  changes  were  made  in  connection  with  the 
number  of  members,  in  spite  of  vigorous  efforts  to  secure 
an  increase  of  four  members  which  London  claimed  to  be 
entitled  to  on  the  basis  of  population.  The  Government 
even  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  sentimental  and  historical 
appeal  which  came  from  York  to  be  permitted  to  retain  its 
two  members  because  for  six  centuries  it  had  been  entitled 
to  two  representatives  in  the  House.  The  only  concession 
granted  was  to  the  University  of  London  which  was  per- 
mitted to  retain  its  one  member  instead  of  being  grouped 
with  the  eight  other  universities  in  England  and  Wales  in 
a  scheme  of  proportional  representation.  Otherwise  the 
House  adhered  rigidly  to  the  recommendations  of  the 

*The  Lords  made  an  amendment  which  was  later  accepted  by  the 
House  which  granted  one  representative  to  the  University  of  Wales. 
Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27:  1136. 


385]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       179 

Commission,  no  additional  members  were  provided  for 
and  only  minor  amendments  accepted  such  as  the  change 
of  the  name  of  constituencies  to  satisfy  local  desires. 

In  England,  London  received  an  increase  of  three 
members  making  sixty-two  in  all,  the  other  boroughs  were 
given  an  increase  of  twenty-seven,  and  the  universities  an 
increase  of  two  members  while  the  counties  lost  one 
member.  In  Wales  the  boroughs  lost  one  member,  the 
counties  gained  two  and  the  university  one.  In  Scotland 
the  boroughs  gained  two,  the  universities  one  and  the 
counties  lost  one  member.  It  was  the  boroughs,  the  great 
industrial  centers,  which  gained  a  total  of  thirty-three  seats 
by  the  redistribution.  Seventeen  large  boroughs  got  in- 
creased representation;  that  of  Birmingham  was  increased 
from  five  to  twelve  members,  Liverpool  from  two  to  eleven, 
Manchester  from  four  to  ten,  Sheffield  from  two  to  seven, 
Leeds  from  one  to  six,  Bristol  from  one  to  five,  Bradford 
from  one  to  four,  Hull  from  one  to  four,  and  Nottingham 
from  one  to  four  members.  On  the  other  hand  there  were 
twenty-seven  boroughs,  most  of  them  with  a  parliamentary 
history  of  centuries,  which  were  extinguished.  Among 
these  were  Boston,  Canterbury,  Colchester,  Peterborough, 
Scarborough,  Shrewsbury,  Warwick  and  Windsor.  In 
general  the  redistribution  marked  a  decline  in  the  represen- 
tation of  the  agricultural  districts  and  an  increase  in  the 
political  power  of  the  large  towns.  Six  well  defined 
areas — Greater  London  with  101  members,  Lancashire 
with  66,  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire  with  43,  the 
Birmingham  zone  with  41,  the  Glasgow  zone  with  32,  and 
the  North-East  Coast  with  31 — will  return  314  members 
or  37  more  than  the  rest  of  Great  Britain.  The  west  of  Eng- 
land was  proportionately  the  greatest  loser;  and  Cornwall, 
so  prolific  in  boroughs  before  the  Reform  Act  of  1832,  was 
deprived  of  its  solitary  survivor,  Penryn  and  Falmouth. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [386 

The  counties  lost  a  total  of  eleven  members  and  there  was 
a  widespread  readjustment  of  boundary  lines.1 

Proportional  Representation 

The  fact  that  the  redistribution  of  seats  had  deprived  so 
many  county  and  country  districts  of  their  representation 
in  the  House  caused  the  agricultural  interests  especially  to 
carry  on  a  vigorous  propaganda  to  get  proportional  repre- 
sentation reintroduced  into  the  bill.2  The  question  came 
up  again  on  the  report  stage  when  Mr.  A.  Williams  intro*- 
duced  an  amendment  that  virtually  would  have  restored  the 
original  clause  in  the  bill.3  It  was  not  proposed  to  apply 
this  to  the  country  as  a  whole  but  only  to  a  limited  number 
of  cities  and  to  twenty-nine  divisions  of  London.  The  sup- 
porters especially  emphasized  the;  fact  that  unless  pro- 
portional representation  were  reintroduced  the  number  of 
dual  voters  would  be  enormously  increased  and  that  it  was 
necessary  to  secure  representation  for  minorities.  The 
London  Liberal  Federation  was  practically  unanimous 
against  the  application  of  the  scheme  to  London.  It  was 
pointed  out  by  the  opponents  of  the  plan  that  with  one  ex- 
ception all  those  who  had  spoken  in  support  of  the  proposal 
represented  constituencies  which  would  not  be  affected  by 
the  amendment  and  that  they  were  attempting  to  impose 
the  experiment  upon  some  other  constituency.  While  the 
Government  left  it  an  open  question,  Mr.  Hayes  Fisher 
warned  the  House  that  if  proportional  representation  were 
reintroduced  it  would  cause  serious  delay  with  the  bill 
because  it  would  mean  a  reconstitution  of  the  Boundary 
Commission.*  On  division  the  principle  was  defeated  for 

*For  general  summary,  cf.  infra,  p.  198. 

2C/.  supra,  pp.  154,  162. 

'Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  99:  1302-12. 

4  Ibid.,  1457-64- 


387]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       181 

the  third  time  by  a  vote  of  126  ayes  to  202  noes,  a  much 
more  decisive  defeat  than  on  the  two  previous  occasions.1 

Alternative  Voting 

After  the  defeat  of  proportional  representation  the  dis- 
cussion of  alternative  voting  was  again  brought  before  the 
House  by  a  motion  introduced  by  Sir  G.  Young  which  pro- 
posed to  strike  out  the  clause  providing  for  alternative  vot- 
ing.2 This  led  to  a  three-hour  debate.  The  Govern- 
ment again  left  it  an  open  question  and  on  division  the 
principle  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  150  to  121. a  An  amend- 
ment was  then  adopted  which  altered  the  method  of  count- 
ing the  alternative  vote.  The  proposed  plan  as  set  forth  in  a 
new  schedule,  was  known  as  the  Nanson  plan,  which  had 
been  in  operation  in  West  Australia.  Two  days  later, 
November  28,  this  proposed  schedule  was  introduced.* 
After  considerable  discussion,  on  second  reading,  so  much 
opposition  developed  against  this  method  of  counting  the 
votes  that  it  failed  to  be  adopted  by  vote  of  135  ayes  to  167 

1  Analysis  of  the  vote  shows  that  the  'Labor  party,  Nationalist,  and 
Independent  gave  a  majority  for  the  amendment  while  the  Liberals 

gave  a  small  majority  against  it,  and  the  Unionists  rolled  up  a  big 
majority  in  the  opposition. 

Against  For 

Unionist    126  28 

Liberal 70  60 

Labor 8  13 

Nationalist  26 

Independent  i 

204  128 

This  includes  the   Tellers.     The   Times,  'November   24,    1917,   p.   8. 
For  later  stages  in  the  House  of  Lords,  cf.  infra,  p.  188. 
'Parliamentary  Debates,  vol.  99:  1469-73. 
'  For  action  of  Lords,  cf.  infra,  p.  189. 
4  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  99:  2125-38. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [388 

noes.  After  this  party  manoeuvre  to  defeat  the  principle 
of  alternative  voting  it  was  left  in  a  peculiar  position. 
There  had  been  incorporated  in  the  bill  references  to  the 
eighth  and  ninth  schedules  as  a  method  of  counting  the 
alternative  votes,  but  no  such  schedules  were  in  existence, 
so  obnoxious  had  the  proposed  scheme  been  to  the  Liberal 
members.  Since  they  could  not  agree  upon  the  method  of 
counting  the  vote  it  was  left  to  an  Order  in  Council  to 
develop  a  plan  of  procedure. 

Disqualification  of  Conscientious  Objectors 

The  question  of  the  disfranchisement  of  conscientious 
objectors  was  again  raised  by  Sir  G.  Young  in  report  stage.1 
He  introduced  an  amendment  which  provided  that,  "Any 
person  who  has  been  exempted  from  military  service  on  the 
grounds  of  conscientious  objections  or  who  having  joined 
the  forces,  has  been  sentenced  by  court-martial  for  refusal 
to  obey  orders,  and  who  alleged  conscientious  objections 
to  military  service  as  a  reason  for  his  refusal,  shall  be 
disqualified  from  being  registered  or  voting  at  a  parliamen- 
tary or  local  government  election." 2  The  question  had 
aroused  a  great  deal  of  discussion  outside  of  the  House,  and 
the  members  had  been  deluged  with  letters  and  telegrams 
on  both  sides  of  the  question.  By  this  time  the  Government 
had  taken  a  different  position  on  the  question  and  agreed 
to  leave  it  open.  Among  the  supporters  of  the  general  pro- 
position there  was  a  consensus  of  opinion  that  the  amend- 
ment was  too  broad  in  scope  and  rather  loosely  constructed. 
It  would  apply  to  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  even 
though  after  being  exempt  from  military  service,  they  had 
rendered  valuable  service  to  the  nation  as  members  of  the 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  157-8. 

•  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  99:  1135-8. 


389]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8       183 

Friends  Ambulance  Unit  in  France  and  Italy  and  as  mine 
sweepers.  It  was  generally  agreed  that  they  should  not  be 
disfranchised.  On  the  other  hand  the  amendment  did  not 
reach  those  objectors  who  had  not  been  sentenced  by  court- 
martial  but  had  been  dealt  with  under  other  offenses.  On 
account  of  these  criticisms,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Govern- 
ment, the  vote  was  taken  on  the  principle  and  the  Govern- 
ment promised  to  embody  the  suggestions  in  an  amend- 
ment. With  this  understanding  the  amendment  carried 
by  a  vote  of  209  ayes  to  171  noes.1 

The  amendments  to  this  clause  were  taken  up  on 
December  6.  The  first  one  excluded  from  disqualification 
all  those  who  had  taken  up  work  with  non-combatant 
battalions.3  As  passed  by  the  House  the  clause  was  of 
unlimited  duration.  This  gave  rise  to  a  great  deal  of  op- 
position and  it  was  finally  amended  so  as  to  terminate  five 
years  after  the  end  of  the  war.  The  scope  of  the  clause  was 
also  greatly  limited  by  the  provision  that  the  disqualification 
should  not  apply  to  a  person  who  within  one  year  after  the 
termination  of  the  war  proved  to  the  Central  Tribunal,3  and 

lAn  analysis  of  the  results  shows  almost  a  straight  party  vote  upon 
the  question,  the  Unionists  being  responsible  for  its  passage. 

For  Against 

Unionist  178  5 

Liberal 28  133 

Labor i  21 

National  2  14 

Independent  2 

211  173 

This  includes  the  Tellers.     The  Times,  Nov.  23,  1917,  p.  7. 
1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  100:  677-9. 
*The  Central  Tribunal  was  established  under  the  Military  Service 
Act  of  1916  (5  &  6  Geo.  5,  c.  104) »  s.  7,  and  was  to  be  continued  for 
one  year  after  the  termination  of  the  war  for  the  purposes  of  this 
section  of  the  Franchise  -Law. 


!84  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [390 

obtained  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  that  he  performed  service 
during  the  war  as  a  member  of  any  naval  or  military  force 
for  which  money  was  provided  by  Parliament,  or  service 
afloat  or  abroad  in  connection  with  the  war  in  any  work  of 
the  British  Red  Cross,  or  the  Order  of  St.  John  of 
Jerusalem  in  England,  or  any  other  organization  with  a 
similar  object.  An  attempt  was  made  to  strike  out  this 
last  provision  which  was  understood  to  include  the  Friends 
Ambulance  Unit  and  similar  organizations,  but  it  failed. 
A  further  amendment  was  added  which  provided  that  any 
one  having  been  exempted  from  military  service  on  condition 
of  doing  work  of  national  importance,  and  having  done  such 
work  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Tribunal,  would  be  exempt 
from  disqualification.  In  the  House  of  Lords  this  was 
further  amended  to  include  those  who  had  been  granted  an 
absolute  exemption  from  military  service  but  who  had 
nevertheless  entered  upon  and  continued  to  perform  service 
which  was  of  national  importance.1  It  was  further  pro- 
vided that  this  disqualification  should  not  operate  so  as  to 
disqualify  the  wife  of  a  man  who  was  disfranchised.  In 
the  report  stage  in  the  Lords  the  clause  was  redrafted  but 
no  change  was  made  in  its  meaning  or  application. 

As  finally  adopted  the  disqualification  was  limited  to  five 
years  after  the  end  of  the  war.  It  was  to  apply  to  all 
persons  who  were  exempted  from  military  services  on 
account  of  conscientious  objections  or  those  who  were 
sentenced  by  court-martial  for  refusal  to  obey  military  law, 
on  account  of  conscientious  objection.  Conscientious  ob- 
jectors, however,  were  not  to  be  disqualified  if  before  the 
expiration  of  one  year  after  the  war  they  obtained  a  certi- 
ficate from  the  Central  Tribunal  that  they  had  satisfactorily 
performed  services  during  the  war  in  some  way  connected 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  voL  27:  762. 


39 1  ]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  j9i8       185 

with  the  war  or  had  performed  work  of  national  importance. 
This  provision  greatly  limited  the  extent  of  the  disqualifica- 
tion. 

Redistribution  in  Ireland 

On  October  18,  the  Government  announced  its  definite 
intentions  of  including  Ireland  within  the  scope  of  redis- 
tribution.1 In  the  meantime  a  Boundary  Commission  had 
been  appointed  and  had  prepared  a  schedule.  On  December 
4,  a  new  section  and  schedule  dealing  with  redistribution 
in  Ireland  were  introduced.  Mr.  John  Redmond,  speaking 
for  the  Nationalists,  immediately  moved  the  rejection  of 
this  part  of  the  amendment.2  He  accused  the  Government 
of  a  breach  of  faith  with  Ireland  as  the  Nationalists  had 
accepted  the  recommendations  of  the  Speaker's  Conference 
on  the  understanding  that  redistribution  would  not  apply  to 
Ireland.  He  said  the  fact  that  the  Government  had  decided 
to  force  redistribution  into  the  bill  meant  it  had  no  hope  that 
the  Irish  Convention  would  come  to  any  agreement  or 
settlement.  This  gave  rise  to  a  long  and  rather  bitter  dis- 
cussion of  the  Irish  question.  The  Nationalists  insisted 
that  the  Government  was  bent  upon  the  humiliation  of 
Ireland,  that  the  Boundary  Commission's  report  would  de- 
prive the  Nationalists  of  their  power,  that  this  policy  would 
only  increase  the  strength  of  the  revolutionary  party  (Sinn 
Fein),  and  that  the  whole  policy  of  the  Government  had 
been  directed  by  Sir  Edward  Carson  in  the  interests  of  the 
Unionists. 

The  Government  defending  its  policy  said  the  delay  in 
bringing  forward  this  scheme  was  due  to  the  hope  that 
the  Irish  Convention  would  have  been  able,  long  before 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  176. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  100:  316-9. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [392 

I        •"*  \ 

this  stage  of  the  bill,  to  bring  forward  a  solution,  of  the 
whole  question.  In  the  absence  of  this  report  the  Govern- 
ment had  either  to  exclude  Ireland  entirely  from  the  scope 
of  the  bill  or  include  it  within  redistribution.  With  the 
pressure  of  the  whips  the  policy  of  the  Government,  in  spite 
of  the  strong  protest  of  the  Nationalists,  was  sustained  by 
a  vote  of  217  to  163. 

After  being  defeated  in  regard  to  redistribution  the  next 
move  of  the  Nationalists  was  to  attempt  to  get  the  principle 
of  proportional  representation  applied  to  Ireland.  In  intro- 
ducing this  amendment  Mr.  Devlin  argued  that  unless  this 
system  were  adopted  minorities  would  be  almost  wholly 
unrepresented  in  the  different  parts  of  Ireland.1  The  Gov- 
ernment refused  to  leave  this  an  open  question  and  the 
amendment  failed.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Govern- 
ment carried  through  its  policy  and  defeated  all  attempts  at 
amendment,  the  attack  of  the  Nationalists  continued  in 
an  ever  increasing  and  threatening  manner.  It  was  evident 
that  the  Government  was  getting  involved  in  such  a  con- 
troversial question  that  a  general  agreement  on  the  bill 
might  become  impossible. 

When  the  second  reading  of  this  new  section  and  schedule 
was  moved  on  December  6,  Mr.  Healy  immediately 
launched  a  vituperative  attack  against  the  policy  of  the 
Government  in  connection  with  redistribution  and  the 
methods  that  had  been  followed  in  the  appointment  of  the 
Boundary  Commission  and  its  work.2  He  was  bitter  and 
criminating  in  his  attack  upon  Trinity  College  and  its  re- 
presentative. Sir  Edward  Carson.  This  caused  a  violent 
debate  which  threatened  to  wreck  the  passage  of  the 
bill.  At  the  end  of  this  hopeless  wrangle  Mr.  J.  Redmond 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  100:499-500. 

•/&«.,  758-65. 


393]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8       187 

proposed  a  compromise  which  offered  the  Government  a 
way  of  escape  from  a  very  serious  situation.  This  was 
accepted  in  principle  by  Mr.  Bonar  Law  and  the  next 
day  it  was  definitely  agreed  that  a  Conference  should  be 
set  up  to  consider  redistribution  of  seats  in  Ireland.  It  was 
to  be  composed  of  two  members  to  be  nominated  by  Mr. 
Redmond,  leader  of  the  Nationalists,  and  two  by  Sir  J. 
Lonsdale,  leader  of  the  Irish  Unionists,  and  the  Speaker 
who  should  serve  as  chairman.1  It  was  understood  that  all 
parts  of  the  country  would  have  equitable  distribution  hav- 
ing regard  to  population.  The  decision  of  the  Conference 
was  to  be  embodied  in  a  bill,  which  2  was  to  pass  as  an 
agreed  measure,  and  was  to  receive  the  Royal  assent  at  the 
same  time  as  the  Franchise  Bill.  On  these  conditions  the 
section  and  schedule  in  the  bill  dealing  with  Ireland  were 
withdrawn.  This  proved  to  be  a  happy  solution  of  a  highly 
contentious  problem  which  threatened  to  break  up  the 
agreement  on  the  bill  and  greatly  endangered  its  final 
passage.  With  this  out  of  the  way  the  Franchise  Bill,  amid 
general  cheers,  passed  a  third  reading  without  even  a  divi- 
sion. 

The  Bill  in  the  House  of  Lords 

The  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Lords  for  a 
first  reading  on  December  n,  and  came  up  for  a  second 
reading  on  December  i/.3  The  debate  which  lasted  for 
three  days  was  of  an  unusual  character,  in  that  no  member 
moved  the  rejection  of  the  bill  nor  did  any  member  commit 
himself  to  vote  against  the  bill  even  though  no  changes  were 
made  in  it.  The  chief  objections  urged  against  it  were  that 
it  was  inopportune  to  introduce  such  a  measure  during  the 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  sth  series,  vol.  100 : 820. 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  198. 

*  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  $th  series,  vol.  27:  86-102;  163. 


FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [394 

war,  that  proportional  representation  had  been  stricken  out 
of  the  bill,  that  it  included  women's  suffrage,  that  the  pro- 
visions for  the  redistribution  of  Ireland  were  not  settled, 
and  that  it  broke  a  political  truce. 

Women's  Suffrage  in  the  House  of  Lords 
In  the  committee  stage  only  minor  amendments  were 
made  in  the  first  three  clauses  and  no  really  contentious 
question  was  taken  up  until  that  of  women's  suffrage  was 
reached.  The  debate  on  this  lasted  for  two  days  although 
no  new  argument  was  presented.  There  was  a  great  deal 
of  anxiety  among  the  supporters  of  the  principle  even 
though  it  was  evident  that  the  clause  would  not  be  stricken 
from  the  bill.  It  was  recognized  that  this  would  cause  a 
struggle. between  the  two  Houses  which  the  Lords  did  not 
care  to  embark  upon  during  war  times.  On  division  the 
amendment  to  defeat  the  women's  suffrage  provision  failed 
by  a  vote  of  134  to  71. * 

Attempts  were  made  by  the  Lords  to  reintroduce  the 
clause  which  disqualified  wives  of  local  government  electors 
from  being  registered  in  respect  of  the  same  property  for 
the  local  government  franchise 2  and  also  to  strike  out 
the  clause  which  disqualified  conscientious  objectors,3  but 
both  of  these  attempts  failed  by  large  majorities. 

Proportional  Representation  and  Alternative  Voting  in  the 

House  of  Lords 

Since  the  defeat  of  proportional  representation  in  the 
Commons  the  supporters  of  the  principle  had  conducted  a 
vigorous  campaign  to  get  it  reintroduced  into  the  bill  by  the 
Lords.4  The  agricultural  interests  were  especially  active 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27 : 526. 
9  Ibid.,  634. 

3  Ibid.,  724. 

4  Cf.  supra,  p.  1 80. 


395]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8       189 

in  this  movement.  Resolutions  demanding  that  propor- 
tional representation  be  applied  to  the  country  areas  were 
passed  by  the  English  and  Scottish  Chambers  of  Agriculture 
and  the  English  and  Scottish  Farmers'  Union.1  The  re- 
commendation of  the  Speaker's  Conference  had  been  that 
proportional  representation  be  applied  to  parliamentary 
boroughs  having  three  or  more  members.  The  last  amend- 
ment which  was  defeated  by  the  House  applied  only  to  a 
limited  number  of  borough  constituencies  and  to  29  divi- 
sions in  London.  The  amendment  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Lords  by  the  Earl  of  Selbourne  provided  that  propor- 
tional representation  would  apply  to  both  borough  and 
county  parliamentary  constituencies  returning  from  three  to 
five  members  in  any  contested  election  of  the  full  number  of 
members.2  In  the  two  days'  debate  which  followed  no  new 
arguments  were  presented  on  either  side  of  the  question. 
The  Government  warned  the  advocates  of  the  principle  that 
its  introduction  into  the  bill  might  endanger  the  passage  of 
the  measure,  but  this  did  not  deter  the  advocates  from  roll- 
ing up  a  big  majority  in  favor  of  the  amendment  on  divi- 
sion, the  vote  being  131  to  42. s  In  the  House,  on  an  amend- 
ment of  limited  application,  the  Unionists  had  voted  by  al- 
most a  hundred  majority  to  reject  proportional  representa- 
tion, but  the  Lords  now  gave  an  overwhelming  majority  for 
unlimited  application  of  the  principle  to  multiple  member 
districts.  There  were  grave  suspicions  that  the  votes  were 
not  being  cast  wholly  upon  the  specific  issue  involved. 

It  became  evident  when  a  motion  was  immediately  made 
to  eliminate  the  system  of  alternative  voting  from  the  bill 
that  these  suspicions  were  plausible.  This  was  the  one 
question,  in  connection  with  the  bill,  which  had  been  decided 

1  The  Manchester  Guardian,  Nov.  8,  1917,  p.  4. 

•  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27:  824. 

*Ibid.,  954. 


I90  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [396 

each  time  by  a  strict  party  vote.  While  it  had  been  carried 
by  a  small  majority,  there  had  been  a  solid  vote  of  the  Union- 
ists against  the  principle.  They  thoroughly  appreciated  the 
disadvantage  at  which  they  would  be  placed  in  a  three- 
cornered  fight,  knowing  they  would  lose  many  seats  they  had 
heretofore  been  able  to  secure.  They  were  more  strongly 
opposed  to  alternative  voting  than  to  proportional  repre- 
sentation. On  division  the  motion  to  eliminate  alternative 
voting  from  the  bill  carried  by  a  vote  of  57  to  9.1  With 
proportional  representation  reintroduced  in  the  bill  and 
alternative  voting  stricken  out,  the  Lords  hoped  to  get  a 
favorable  compromise  on  the  question  with  the  House. 

The  next  amendment  to  be  adopted  was  one  which  pro- 
vided that  the  principle  of  proportional  representation 
should  be  applied  to  university  constituencies  where  there 
were  three  or  more  members  to  be  elected  rather  than  two 
members.  This  carried  by  a  bare  majority  of  one,  the  vote 
being  3 1  to  30. 

Division  of  Constituencies  into  Polling  Districts 

A  new  section  was  adopted  by  the  Lords  which  made 
provision  for  the  division  of  constituencies  into  polling 
districts  and  the  fixing  of  polling  places.2  Previously  the 
division  of  the  parliamentary  boroughs  into  polling  districts 
had  been  made  by  the  town  council.  In  other  boroughs  it 
had  been  made  by  the  justices  in  petty  sessions  or  by  the 
county  council.  The  new  section  placed  the  duty  of  divid- 
ing the  constituencies  into  polling  districts  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  polling  places  upon  the  council  by  which  the  regis- 
tration officer  was  appointed.  Reasonable  facilities  for  vot- 
ing for  all  electors  were  required  to  be  provided.  In  London 
it  was  provided  that  the  draft  of  the  plan  should  be  sent  to 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  27 : 974. 
1002. 


397]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  2918       191 

the  London  County  Council  for  approval,  elsewhere  it  was 
to  be  sent  to  the  Local  Government  Board.  It  was  further 
provided  that  any  local  authority  or  even  thirty  electors 
might  ask  the  Local  Government  Board  for  a  review  of 
the  decision  of  the  council.  The  Board  was  authorized  to 
make  such  recommendations  to  the  council  as  seemed  ad- 
visable. If  these  were  not  accepted  by  the  council,  the 
Board  was  authorized  to  make  these  alterations  and  en- 
force them.  A  further  section  provided  that  the  place  of 
election  for  each  constituency  (except  university  constituen- 
cies) would  be  fixed  by  the  returning  officer. 

Special  Provision  for  Registration  of  Freemen 

On  the  report  stage  an  amendment  was  adopted  which 
preserved  the  ancient  freeman  vote.  An  attempt  had  been 
made  in  the  House  to  introduce  an  amendment  to  this  effect 
but  the  Government  refused  to  make  any  concession.  The 
amendment  as  accepted  did  not  create  a  wholly  new  qualifi- 
cation for  the  franchise;  it  simply  provided  that  a  freeman 
of  the  City  of  London,  being  a  liveryman  of  one  of  the 
several  companies,  who  was  qualified  to  vote  as  a  parliamen- 
tary elector  in  respect  of  business  premises  could,  if  he 
desired,  vote  instead  as  a  liveryman.1  This  simply  granted 
the  privilege  to  vote  as  a  liveryman  rather  than  as  an  oc- 
cupier, but  the  freeman  must  first  possess  the  occupier's 
qualifications.  This  same  privilege  was  extended  to  other 
boroughs  if  the  council  of  the  borough  so  desired. 

The  chief  interest  in  the  Lords  centered  around  women's 
suffrage,  proportional  representation,  and  alternative  vot- 
ing. These  were  the  only  questions  concerning  which  there 
was  any  great  disagreement  or  party  spirit  manifested. 
There  were  a  large  number  of  amendments  offered.  Those 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  27 : 1233-6. 


I92  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [398 

that  passed  covered  forty-six  pages,  not  including  the  redis- 
tribution schedule.  Most  of  these  dealt  with  the  drafting  of 
the  bill  or  were  concerned  with  minor  points  of  administra- 
tion and  did  not  change  the  principles  of  the  bill  as  passed 
by  the  House.  No  determined  opposition  developed  against 
the  bill.  In  fact,  no  division  was  taken  by  the  Lords  on 
the  first,  second  or  third  reading. 

Struggle  between  the  Lords  and  Commons  over  Propor- 
tional Representation  and  Alternative  Voting 

The  amendments  proposed  by  the  Lords  were  taken  up 
in  the  House  on  January  30.  The  first  to  be  considered  was 
that  which  provided  for  proportional  representation;  its 
rejection  was  moved  by  Mr.  Burdett-Coutts.1  The 
members  of  the  House  objected  to  having  any  electoral  re- 
form forced  by  the  Lords.  A  great  many  members  feared 
that  the  constituencies  which  they  had  so  carefully  nursed 
might  be  merged  into  larger  constituencies  which  would 
make  their  electioneering  tasks  more  difficult.  There  were 
also  those  who  feared  that  the  reintroduction  of  propor- 
tional representation  so  late  in  the  stages  of  the  bill  might 
endanger  its  passage.  The  problem  was  more  complicated 
by  the  new  schedule  which  was  to  be  revised  by  the 
Boundary  Commission  at  the  next  session.  This  plan  of 
legislating  in  the  dark  upon  such  an  important  question  as 
redistribution  did  not  appeal  to  the  members  very  strongly 
and  was  one  of  the  objections  repeatedly  urged  during  the 
debate.  On  division  the  House  rejected  the  Lord's  amend- 
ment by  vote  of  223  to  1 13.* 

They  next  took  up  the  amendment  of  the  Lords  which  pro- 
posed to  strike  the  principle  of  alternative  voting  from  the 
bill.  The  last  time  it  was  before  the  House  it  passed  by 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  101 :  1602-9. 
1  Ibid.,  1704. 


399]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       193 

a  strictly  partisan  vote  of  150  to  I2I.1  Although  the 
Government  proposed  to  leave  it  an  open  question,  Sir  G. 
Cave,  speaking  for  himself,  strongly  urged  the  House  to 
accept  the  amendment  of  the  Lords  for  fear  its  rejection 
would  endanger  the  success  of  the  bill.  This  warning  and 
the  fear  of  endangering  the  success  of  the  bill  caused  a 
close  vote  on  division,  the  amendment  being  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  178  to  I7O.2  This  made  a  rather  dangerous 
deadlock  between  the  two  Houses,  the  Commons  having 
defeated  both  of  the  important  amendments  proposed  by 
the  Lords. 

The  House  referred  the  proportional  representation 
amendment  back  to  the  Lords  with  the  statement  that  they 
refused  to  accept  it  because  they  considered  it  undesirable 
to  apply  the  principle  of  proportional  representation  espec- 
ially in  view  of  the  delay  in  the  passage  of  the  bill  which 
would  be  caused  thereby.  As  soon  as  the  question  was 
before  the  Lords  again  the  Earl  of  Selbourne  introduced 
a  substitute  amendment  which  provided  that  any  parliamen- 
tary borough  entitled  to  return  three  or  more  members 
should  be  a  single  member  constituency  and  in  case  of  a 
contested  election  for  the  full  number  of  members  for 
Parliament  the  election  should  be  according  to  the  principle 
of  proportional  representation  and  that  each  elector  should 
have  one  transferable  vote.  It  provided  that  no  constitu- 
ency should  have  more  than  five  members.3  This  would 
apply  to  141  seats,  29  of  which  would  be  from  London. 
This  rather  curious  compromise  throws  some  light  upon  the 
real  purpose  of  the  leaders  in  the  Lords.  The  chief  argu- 
ment advanced  by  the  Lords  in  favor  of  proportional  re- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  181. 

'  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  101 :  1820. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  28:  321-30. 


I04  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [400 

presentation  was  that  the  agricultural  districts  might  be 
represented,  but  the  compromise  which  they  now  pro- 
posed entirely  excluded  the  county  constituencies  from  the 
scope  of  the  amendment.  During  the  debate  it  was  sug- 
gested by  Earl  Curzon  that  it  would  be  much  more  equitable 
and  less  contentious  with  the  House  of  Commons  if  a 
Commission  were  appointed  with  instructions  to  draw  up 
a  scheme  of  proportional  representation  that  would  apply 
to  100  members,  these  to  exclude  London  and  include  the 
agricultural  districts.  The  suggestion  was  not  accepted  at 
the  time,  and  the  substitute  amendment  was  carried  by 
a  vote  of  86  to  35.  The  Lords  thus  took  an  uncompromising 
position  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  get  concessions  from 
the  Commons. 

On  the  question  of  alternative  voting  the  Commons 
simply  stated  that  they  refused  to  accept  the  Lords'  amend- 
ment because  they  desired  to  adhere  to  the  principle  of  the 
alternative  vote.  The  motion  was  immediately  made  that 
the  Lords  insist  upon  their  amendment.1  This  was  the  one 
provision  which  the  Lords  were  determined  to  have  stricken 
from  the  bill.  They  took  advantage  of  the  weak  position 
taken  by  the  Government  in  the  House  in  regard  to  the 
question  and  cited  that  the  Commons  had  sustained  the 
principle  at  one  time  by  a  majority  of  only  one  vote  and 
had  rejected  the  Lord's  amendment  by  a  majority  of  only 
eight  votes.  They  argued  that  this  indicated  no  decided 
opinion  on  the  matter,  while  the  Lords  had  rejected  the 
principle  by  a  majority  of  six  to  one.  This  argument  pre- 
vailed and  the  Lords  again  took  a  chance  upon  attempting 
to  coerce  the  Commons  and  insisted  upon  their  amend- 
ment by  a  vote  of  66  to  29.  This  action  offered  a  possibility 
for  a  compromise  by  dropping  both  proportional  representa- 
tion and  alternative  voting  from  the  bill. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  28:  351. 


40i]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  1918       195 

When  the  House  took  up  the  Lords'  proportional  repre- 
sentation amendment,  which  applied  only  to  boroughs, 
amendments  were  introduced  which  would  exclude  the  ad- 
ministrative county  of  London  from  the  scope  of  propor- 
tional representation.  This  was  followed  by  other  amend- 
ments to  exclude  the  cities  of  Birmingham,  Manchester,  and 
Liverpool.  It  became  apparent  that  this  was  only  an 
attempt  to  defeat  the  amendment  by  the  exclusion  of  various 
cities  from  its  scope,  so  that  Sir  G.  Cave  requested  that  the 
vote  be  taken  upon  the  main  issue.  This  was  accordingly 
done  and  the  Lords'  amendment  was  for  the  second  time 
rejected  by  a  vote  of  238  to  141. 1  Thus  for  the  fifth  time 
the  House  voted  against  the  principle  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation. 

The  House  next  took  up  the  alternative  voting  amend- 
ment. Mr.  Dickinson  immediately  introduced  what  he 
claimed  was  a  compromise  which  provided  that  the  alterna- 
tive vote  should  be  used  in  an  election  for  one  member  of 
Parliament  in  any  parliamentary  borough  where  there  were 
more  than  two  candidates.2  This  followed  the  line  of  the 
compromise  proposed  by  the  Lords  in  connection  with 
proportional  representation  and  limited  the  application  of 
the  principle  to  the  boroughs.  It  was  urged  that  this  would 
afford  an  opportunity  to  experiment  with  the  principle  and 
yet  not  make  too  wide  an  application  of  it  at  first.  This 
was  carried  by  a  bare  majority  of  one,  the  vote  being  195 
to  194.  For  a  second  time  the  Commons  rejected  the 
Lords'  alternative  voting  amendment.  A  number  of 
Liberals  abstained  from  voting  for  fear  of  jeopardizing  the 
bill  and  most  of  the  Liberal  and  Labor  members  of  the 
Ministry  did  likewise. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  101 :  2170-86. 
'  Ibid.,  2193-4. 


I96  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [402 

The  deadlock  between  the  two  Houses  continued  to 
February  6,  the  very  last  day  of  the  session.  With  the 
decisive  vote  of  the  Commons  on  proportional  representa- 
tion and  only  a  majority  of  one  for  alternative  voting  it 
appeared  that  both  schemes  would  be  dropped  from  the  bill, 
which  would  really  satisfy  the  Lords.  But  the  Lords  made 
one  more  attempt  to  save  proportional  representation. 
Acting  upon  the  suggestion  made  by  Earl  Curzon  when 
the  question  was  before  the  Lords  on  the  former  occa- 
sion, Lord  Lansdowne  made  a  proposition  for  a  com- 
promise.1 He  proposed  that  a  Commission  be  appointed  to 
prepare  a  scheme  under  which  100  members  would  be 
elected  to  the  House  at  a  general  election  by  the  principle 
of  proportional  representation.  The  Commission  was  to 
hold  inquiries  and  to  select  the  constituencies  which  were 
to  return  from  three  to  seven  members.  It  was  provided 
that  this  would  apply  to  both  borough  and  county  constitu- 
encies. The  scheme  was  to  be  prepared  and  presented  to 
Parliament  and,  if  adopted  by  resolution  by  'both  Houses,  it 
was  to  go  into  effect  as  though  it  were  part  of  the  Act.  The 
Government  agreed  to  carry  out  this  plan  and  to  afford 
facilities  for  its  discussion  when  presented  to  Parliament. 
With  this  assurance  there  was  very  little  doubt  that  the  mat- 
ter of  proportional  representation  was  settled.  This  com- 
promise was  accordingly  accepted  by  the  Lords. 

After  this  agreement  was  reached.  Lord  Crewe  pro- 
posed that  the  alternative  vote  be  dealt  with  in  the  same 
manner.  But  the  Lords  were  too  sure  of  being  able 
to  defeat  the  alternative  vote  to  grant  any  concessions. 
They  refused  to  consider  this  proposal  and  rejected  the 
modified  form  of  alternative  voting  as  proposed  by  the 
Commons  by  a  vote  of  74  to  33. 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  Lords,  5th  series,  vol.  28 :  400-24. 


403]    REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  i9i8      197 

It  was  in  the  closing  hours  of  the  session  that  the  amend- 
ments were  sent  back  for  the  third  time  to  the  Commons. 
When  the  amendment  to  create  the  Commission  to  bring 
forward  a  scheme  for  proportional  representation  was  in- 
troduced, Mr.  Dickinson  immediately  introduced  an  amend- 
ment which  provided  that  this  same  Commission  also  select 
100  single  member  constituencies  for  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  the  alternative  vote.1  The  purpose  of  this  was 
to  apply  exactly  the  same  method  of  procedure  to  the 
alternative  vote  as  to  proportional  representation.  This 
appeared  to  be  an  equitable  compromise.  Sir  G.  Cave  threw 
the  weight  of  his  influence  against  the  proposal  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  so  complicate  the  issue  as  seriously 
to  endanger  the  success  of  the  bill,  and  he  appealed  to  the 
House  to  accept  the  proposal  as  received  from  the  Lords 
without  amendment.  The  principle  of  alternative  voting 
was  thus  eliminated  from  the  bill.  The  House  then 
accepted  the  Commission  scheme  for  proportional  repre- 
sentation by  a  vote  of  224  to  114.  Immediately  following 
the  bill  received  the  Royal  assent,  on  February  6,  1918. 

While  it  was  emphatically  denied  by  the  Lords  that  there 
was  any  bargain  concerning  proportional  representation 
and  alternative  voting,  it  was  clearly  evident  that  the  fate 
of  the  two  proposals  was  linked  together.  The  Unionists' 
strategy  resulted  in  the  capitulation  of  the  Commons.  The 
Liberal  and  Labor  parties  were  divided  upon  the  question 
of  proportional  representation  as  were  also  the  Unionists 
although  possibly  to  a  less  extent.  But  on  the  question  of 
the  alternative  vote  it  had  been  a  clear  party  issue,  the 
Labor  and  Liberal  parties  standing  solidly  for  the  prin- 
ciple and  the  Unionist  against  it.  The  Lords  by  inserting 
proportional  representation  were  able  to  defeat  the  alterna- 
tive vote  and  to  save  proportional  representation.  Because 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  5th  series,  vol.  101 :  2270-84. 


igS  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [404 

of  the  weak  position  taken  by  the  Government,  the  question 
of  the  alternative  vote  was  not  referred  to  the  Commission 
and  the  Lords  thus  scored  a  victory  over  the  Commons. 

Redistribution 

In  the  meantime  the  Boundary  Commission  for  the 
Redistribution  of  Seats  in  Ireland,  which  had  been  agreed  to 
on  December  7,  had  proceeded  with  their  work.1  The  re- 
sults were  embodied  in  a  bill  which  was  introduced  in  the 
House  for  a  first  reading  on  January  23. 2  It  was  part  of 
the  understanding  that  this  was  to  be  an  agreed  measure.  It 
caused,  therefore,  little  discussion.  It  went  through  all  of 
its  stages  without  a  division  and  received  the  Royal  assent 
at  the  same  time  as  the  Franchise  Bill.  This  bill  deprived 
the  ancient  boroughs  of  Galway,  Kilkenny,  and  Newry,  con- 
cerning which  there  had  been  so  much  criticism,  of  separate 
representation.  To  the  surprise  of  most  members  of 
Parliament  the  Conference  granted  Ireland  an  increase  of 
two  representatives,  these  going  to  the  Queen's  University 
of  Belfast  and  the  National  University  of  Ireland.  While 
this  was  opposed  by  most  of  the  members  it  was  recognized 
that  it  was  the  only  way  in  which  a  compromise  could  be 
readied,  and  the  House  acquiesced  in  the  results. 

The  net  results  of  redistribution  by  the  two  acts  were 
that  the  boroughs  were  given  a  total  representation,  in- 
cluding London,  of  320  members  or  an  increase  of  36.  By 
this  change  44  old  boroughs  were  extinguished  and  31  new 
ones  created.  The  counties  had  a  total  of  372  members 
which  was  5  less  than  under  the  old  system.  These  changes 
were  brought  about  chiefly  in  the  boundaries  of  divisions. 
The  Universities  were  now  entitled  to  15  representatives, 
an  increase  of  6;  this  included  the  younger  universities. 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  187. 

*  Redistribution  of  Seats  (Ireland)  Bill,  1918,  Bill  125. 


405]     REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  ACT  igi8       199 

In  the  readjustment  England  was  given  492  members,  an 
increase  of  31 ;  Wales  36,  an  increase  of  2 ;  Scotland  74,  an 
increase  of  2 ;  and  Ireland  105,  an  increase  of  2,  making  a 
total  of  707  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  a  total 
increase  of  37. 

Proportional  Representation  Finally  Defeated 

The  Commission  which  was  appointed  to  bring  forward  a 
scheme  for  proportional  representation  made  its  report  and 
it  was  considered  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  May  13, 
1918.  The  scheme  applied  to  n  parliamentary  boroughs 
and  6  parliamentary  county  constituencies,  returning  in  all 
99  members.  But  the  House  was  no  more  favorably  in- 
clined toward  the  proposed  scheme  than  it  had  been  on 
former  occasions  and  the  report  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of 
no  to  I66.1  This  finally  disposed  of  the  question  of  pro- 
portional representation  so  far  as  the  Franchise  Act  of  1918 
was  concerned. 

Conclusion 

Because  this  bill  was  a  compromise  measure  carried  on 
in  the  midst  of  war,  it  engendered  less  party  spirit  than  any 
great  franchise  reform  bill  ever  enacted  by  Parliament. 
The  struggle  for  women's  suffrage,  which  had  for  so  long 
a  time  agitated  the  public  and  which  at  the  opening  of  the 
war  had  caused  a  condition  of  open  rebellion  against  the 
Government,  was  virtually  won  before  the  bill  was  intro- 
duced. Its  success  was  assured  so  that  it  hardly  assumed 
a  place  of  first-rate  importance  during  the  passage  of  the 
Act.  The  questions  that  were  of  greatest  contention  and 
that  threatened  to  wreck  the  bill  were  those  which  had  not 
been  before  the  country  and  in  which  the  public  at  the 
time  took  very  little  interest.  The  disfranchisement  of 

1  Parliamentary  Debates,  $th  series,  vol.  106:  114. 


200  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [406 

conscientious  objectors  was  strictly  a  war  issue.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  bill  to  Ireland,  which  came  possibly  nearer 
than  any  other  one  question  to  wrecking  the  bill,  was  not 
purely  a  franchise  matter  but  only  part  of  the  perennial 
Irish  problem.  The  questions  of  proportional  representa- 
tion and  of  alternative  voting,  which  caused  such  dramatic 
scenes  during  the  closing  stages  of  the  bill,  had  never  been 
before  the  country  nor  did  they  arouse  any  great  popular 
interest.  They  were  the  only  issues  which  were  decided 
upon  a  strictly  partisan  basis. 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1918  placed  the 
franchise  in  Great  Britain  upon  a  democratic  basis  and 
virtually  granted  manhood  suffrage.  For  the  first  time  a 
great  nation  granted  the  franchise  to  women,  and  although 
it  was  not  granted  on  equal  terms  with  men,  the  principle 
was  definitely  established.  The  complicated  maze  of  fran- 
chise laws  was  swept  aside  by  this  Act  and  the  franchise 
system  was  reduced  to  a  comparatively  simple  basis.  The 
redistribution  of  seats  remedied  the  great  disparity  between 
the  constituencies  in  England,  but  it  did  not  remove  this 
disparity  as  between  England  and  Ireland ;  only  a  settlement 
of  the  Irish  question  will  be  able  to  accomplish  this.  The 
failure  to  adopt  some  system  of  proportional  representation 
or  alternative  voting  will  probably  result  in  a  continued 
agitation  for  these  reforms. 

The  remarkable  success  attained  by  the  Speaker's  Con- 
ference in  bringing  forward  an  agreed  measure  upon  such 
a  highly  contentious  subject  as  the  extension  of  the  franchise 
system  marks  a  great  triumph  for  nonpartisan  legislative 
methods.  This  may  point  the  way  for  the  settlement  of 
other  apparently  insolvable  partisan  problems,  although  it 
is  obvious  that  the  exigencies  of  war  were  responsible  in  no 
small  part  for  the  harmony  that  prevailed. 


APPENDIX 
THE  PARLIAMENTARY  ELECTION,  DECEMBER,  1918 

IT  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  study  to  discuss  the 
operation  of  the  Act  of  1918.  The  official  government  reports 
of  the  election  of  December,  1918,  are  not  yet  available;1  no 
attempt  will  be  made,  therefore,  to  analyze  in  detail  the  results 
of  the  election,  but  a  few  points  in  connection  with  the  opera- 
tion of  the  new  law  may  be  indicated  so  far  as  these  can  be 
determined  from  unofficial  sources. 

The  first  election  under  the  Reform  Act  in  December,  1918, 
was  a  very  abnormal  one.  It  was  so  overshadowed  by  the 
military  victory  of  the  allies  and  dominated  by  the  appeal  to 
patriotism  and  emotion  that  it  throws  very  little  light  upon 
the  real  operation  of  the  new  franchise  law  under  normal 
conditions.  It  is  the  usual  parliamentary  practice  for  an 
election  to  take  place  only  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  of 
Parliament  or  upon  an  appeal  to  the  country  on  some  issue  in 
which  the  Government  had  been  defeated  in  Parliament.  No 
such  procedure  was  followed  in  1918.  Parliament  had  long 
outlived  its  original  term,  but  it  had  been  extended  by  general 
agreement  between  the  parties  in  order  to  avoid  an  election 
during  the  war.  With  the  military  success  of  the  allies  during 
the  autumn  of  1918  the  position  of  the  Coalition  Government 
was  stronger  than  it  had  been  at  any  time  during  its  existence. 

As  early  as  July  the  supporters  of  the  Government  began  to 
urge  the  necessity  of  an  election.2  The  Coalition  Government 
was  not  slow  to  recognize  the  strength  of  its  position,  and  by 
the  first  of  November  it  had  definitely  decided  that  an  election 

1  January,  1920. 

1  The  Times,  July  18,  1918,  p.  6. 

407]  aoi 


202  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [408 

would  be  held  as  soon  as  the  development  of  the  military 
situation  would  make  it  feasible.  There  was  no  demand  for 
an  immediate  election  by  any  of  the  parties  nor  by  the  public. 
In  fact  the  action  of  the  Government  in  thus  throwing  the 
country  into  the  excitement  of  an  election  was  vigorously 
denounced  by  the  Labor  party  and  by  Mr.  Asquith  as  leader  of 
the  Liberal  party. 

The  Government  took  advantage  of  the  termination  of  the 
war  and  the  strength  of  its  position  to  perpetuate  its  power, 
and  the  day  after  the  signing  of  the  armistice  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  at  a  meeting  of  the  Liberals  sounded  the  keynote  of 
the  campaign.  He  said  that  the  old  Parliament  was  moribund, 
had  served  its  day,  and  that  it  was  necessary  for  those  who 
went  to  the  peace  conference  to  have  a  mandate  from  the 
people.1  Ostensibly  the  purpose  of  the  election  was  for  a 
mandate  upon  the  principles  of  peace.  But  the  Government 
never  outlined  a  peace  policy  and  during  the  first  part  of  the 
campaign  discussed  mainly  domestic  issues.  During  the  latter 
part  of  the  campaign  it  degenerated  into  the  triple  slogan, 
"  Hang  the  Kaiser,"  "  Make  Germany  pay  the  costs  of  the 
war/'  and  "  Banish  all  enemy  aliens  from  England."  It 
was  generally  recognized  that  no  man  in  England  had  done 
more  to  win  the  war  than  had  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  and  in  the 
intoxication  of  victory  the  election  offered  an  opportunity  for 
the  people  to  show  their  appreciation  of  his  services  and  to 
express  their  confidence  in  his  Government.  The  results  at 
the  polls  fully  justified  his  strategy ;  there  was  an  overwhelm- 
ing victory  for  the  forces  of  the  Coalition. 

While  the  appeal  was  made  to  the  electorate  for  a  mandate 
on  the  terms  of  peace,  yet  great  pressure  was  brought  to  bear 
by  the  forces  of  the  Coalition  to  eliminate  candidates  and 
secure  as  many  uncontested  seats  as  possible.  They  were 
successful  in  sixty-nine  constituencies,  in  all  there  were  one 
hundred  and  seven  uncontested  seats.2  The  forces  backing 

1  The  Times,  November  13,  1918,  p.  9. 

1  Tke  Times,  Supplement,  December  9,  1918,  p.  viii. 


409]     PARLIAMENTARY  ELECTION,  DECEMBER,  i9i8     203 

the  Government  were  referred  to  as  the  Coalition,  but  in  fact 
it  could  scarcely  be  said  that  there  was  a  Coalition.  The 
Labor  party  officially  withdrew  from  the  support  of  the  Coali- 
tion movement  as  did  also  the  Asquith  wing  of  the  Liberal 
party,  which  was  in  possession  of  the  official  machinery 
and  the  funds  of  that  party.  Therefore  the  Coalition  con- 
sisted of  the  forces  of  the  Government  backed  by  the  Unionist 
party  and  individual  Liberal  and  Labor  members.  That  the 
Unionists  really  dominated  the  situation  and  largely  profited 
by  the  election  was  clearly  substantiated  by  the  results. 

Seldom  has  any  political  party  ever  won  such  a  sweeping 
victory.  Every  minister  who  had  to  face  election  was  re- 
turned, and  in  most  cases  by  a  large  majority.  The  whole 
Liberal  opposition  went  down  to  defeat  before  the  landslide. 
Mr.  Asquith,  all  his  front  bench  lieutenants,  his  whips,  and  all 
the  ex-ministers  who  followed  his  leadership  were  defeated.1 
The  victory  gave  the  Coalition  a  majority  of  249  over  all 
other  parties.  The  Government  would  also  in  the  main  have 
the  support  of  the  Non-Coalition  Unionists  and  part  of  the 
Non-Coalition  Liberals.  It  also  gave  the  Unionists  a  total  of 
357  members  or  a  majority  of  7  over  all  other  parties.  This 
was  a  gain  of  75  seats  as  compared  with  the  old  House. 

1  The  following  gives  the  results  of  the  election  according  to  parties : 

Coalition  Non-Coalition 

Unionist  334  "j  Labor  63 " 

Liberal  133  1  Unionist  23 

National  Democratic         \-  47&       Liberal  28 

Party  10  f  Irish  Union  25 

Independent  i  j  Sinn  Fein  73 

Irish  National  7 

National  Party  2  J-  229 

Independent  4 

Independent  Radical         i 
Socialist  I 

Cooperator  i 

Federation  of  Discharged 
Soldiers  and  Sailors      i 

The  Times,  January  4,  1919,  p.  7. 


204  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [410 

The  Labor  party,  while  not  gaining  the  number  of  seats 
they  had  anticipated,  elected  63  members;  being  the  second 
party  in  the  House,  they  assumed  the  responsibilities  of  the 
Opposition  front  bench.  This  was  a  distinct  victory  for  the 
Trade  Union  element  in  the  party.  All  the  candidates  who 
had  been  classified  in  any  way  as  "  pacifists  "  were  defeated. 
Only  a  remnant  of  28  Non-Coalition  Liberals  was  returned 
and  they  did  not  include  a  single  leader  of  the  party.  The 
Irish  Nationalist  party  was  almost  annihilated,  only  7  mem- 
bers surviving,  the  victory  in  Ireland  going  to  the  radical 
Sinn  Fein  party  with  73  members. 

On  the  face  of  the  returns  it  would  appear  that  the  new 
electorate  had  flocked  to  the  Unionist  party  and  was  largely 
responsible  for  the  landslide.  There  is  no  way  of  determining 
how  the  women  voted ;  estimates  are  uncertain,  for  no  com- 
plete canvass  was  made,  and  very  few  polling  booths  were 
picketed.  The  leaders  of  all  parties  agreed  that  the  women  did 
not  change  materially  the  results  of  the  election  but  only 
contributed  to  swell  the  majorities  of  the  Coalition  candi- 
dates. Since  there  was  no  clear-cut  issue  in  the  campaign  be- 
tweeen  liberalism  and  conservatism  nor  between  the  Liberal, 
Unionist,  and  Labor  parties,  no  conclusions  can  be  drawn  as 
to  the  affiliation  of  the  women  with  the  old  parties.  They 
responded  to  the  appeals  to  patriotism,  as  did  the  men,  and  in 
gratitude  for  the  war  services  of  the  Government  returned  it 
to  power. 

During  the  struggle  for  women's  suffrage  one  of  the  chief 
arguments  which  had  been  used  against  granting  the  franchise 
to  women  was  that  they  would  form  separate  political  parties 
and  since  they  were  numerically  in  the  majority  would 
dominate  elections.  The  first  election  under  the  Act  showed 
no  tendency  in  that  direction.  In  the  earlier  debates  on 
women's  suffrage  there  had  been  great  objections  raised  to 
opening  membership  in  the  House  of  Commons  to  women. 
During  the  debate  on  the  Reform  Bill  this  question  was  not 
discussed  and  nothing  was  stated  in  the  law  to  indicate 
whether  or  not  they  were  eligible  to  membership.  In  order  that 


4i  i  ]     PARLIAMENTARY  ELECTION,  DECEMBER,  1918     205 

this  question  might  not  be  left  to  the  courts  to  decide,  before 
Parliament  was  dissolved  for  the  election,  a  bill  was  rushed 
through  which  removed  any  possible  disability.  The  way  was 
thus  cleared  for  women  candidates.  In  all  there  were  seven- 
teen women  candidates.  Of  these  only  one,  Countess  Mark- 
ievicz,  a  Sinn  Fein  from  Dublin,  was  successful.  In  only  two 
cases  was  the  election  close.  The  women  showed  no  dis- 
position to  support  women  candidates.  There  were  8,479,156 
women  electors  on  the  register  and  the  total  vote  cast  for  the 
17  women  candidates  was  only  57,978.  As  a  result  of  the 
first  election  under  women's  suffrage  the  women  were  still 
unrepresented  by  one  of  their  sex,  since  the  Sinn  Fein  members 
refused  to  sit  at  Westminster.  There  was  no  indication  dur- 
ing the  election  that  the  women  would  attempt  to  form  separate 
political  parties.  Of  the  seventeen  women  candidates  one 
represented  the  Unionist  party,  four  the  Liberal,  four  the 
Labor,  two  the  Sinn  Fein,  five  the  Independent,  and  one,  Miss 
Christabel  Pankhurst,  the  Women's  party.  She  had  the  active 
support  of  the  Coalition;  in  fact,  the  Unionist  candidate, 
Major  S.  M.  Thompson,  withdrew  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Bonar  Law  and  she  was  placed  in  nomination  by  Major 
Thompson. 

A  larger  number  of  women  were  placed  on  the  register  by 
the  Franchise  Act  than  had  been  anticipated,  the  estimate  hav- 
ing been  6,000,000.  While  there  is  no  record  of  the  number 
who  voted,  it  was  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  party 
leaders  that  they  voted  in  fully  as  large  a  proportion  as  did 
the  men.  They  took  an  active  interest  in  the  campaign  and 
were  especially  active  in  heckling  the  political  speakers.  . 

A  larger  proportion  of  the  population  participated  in  this 
election  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  country.  The 
census  of  1911  gave  the  total  population  of  the  United  King- 
dom at  45,221,615.  Under  the  operation  of  the  Franchise  Act 
of  1918,  21,392,322  were  placed  on  the  register  as  parlia- 
mentary electors,  that  is,  47  per  cent  of  the  total  population.1 

1  Parliamentary  Papers,  1919,  no.  138,  p.  23. 


206  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [412 

The  total  vote  cast  for  the  600  contested  seats  was  10,761, 195,1 
practically  50  per  cent  of  the  electorate,  and  24  per  cent  of 
the  total  population. 

When  the  question  of  holding*  elections  on  a  single  day  was 
before  the  House  it  was  urged  that  it  would  place  too  great 
a  burden  upon  the  police  to  maintain  order  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  But  even  with  a  fourth  of  the  population  going  to 
the  polls  no  such  difficulty  was  experienced.  The  Times 
characterized  it  as  "  the  most  orderly  election  of  our  time." 
The  old  street  corner  rowdyism,  armies  of  hired  canvassers, 
great  numbers  of  imported  speakers,  highly  colored  motor  cars, 
and  carefully  staged  torchlight  processions  were  things  of 
the  past.  Part  of  this  was  due  to  the  weakness  of  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  Coalition,  part  to  the  world  situation  under  which 
the  election  was  held,  and  it  was  also  due  in  part  to  the  limita- 
tions which  were  placed  upon  election  expenditures  of  candi- 
dates. 

The  problem  which  forced  the  consideration  of  the  fran- 
chise reform  during  the  war  was  how  to  make  it  possible  to 
place  the  soldiers  and  sailors  on  the  register.  This  was  one 
of  the  most  difficult  questions  which  Parliament  had  to  work 
out.  During  the  discussion  any  one  who  dared  oppose  any 
scheme  which  had  this  for  its  aim,  no  matter  how  impractic- 
able it  might  be,  was  accused  of  being  unpatriotic  and  of 
attempting  to  deprive  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  their  votes. 
The  first  trial  of  the  scheme  that  was  adopted  can  scarcely  be 
taken  as  typical ;  it  certainly  did  not  come  up  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  those  most  interested.  The  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  election  were  such  as  to  make  the  full  operation  of  the 
scheme  impossible.  The  election  was  called  on  short  notice 
before  time  was  given  for  the  completion  and  correction  of 
the  register.  There  were  3,900,135  military  and  naval  voters 
on  the  register  who  were  entitled  to  vote  either  as  absent  voters 
or  by  proxy.2  But  it  was  found  that  in  a  great  many  cases 

1  The  Times,  January  4,  1919,  p.  8. 

2 Parliamentary  Papers,  1919,  no.  138,  p.  23. 


4!3]     PARLIAMENTARY  ELECTION,  DECEMBER,  igjg     207 

their  addresses  were  incomplete  or  insufficient  so  that  it  was 
impossible  to  send  ballot  papers  to  them.  According  to  the 
election  instructions  the  army  officers  were  required  to  furnish 
the  registration  officers,  within  three  days  after  the  notifica- 
tion of  an  election,  a  complete  list  of  the'  latest  addresses  of 
all  soldier  voters  who  were  residents  within  the  officer's  district. 
In  the  midst  of  the  stirring  military  events  of  the  closing  days 
of  the  war  and  the  rapid  movement  of  the  troops  after  the 
armistice  the  army  officers  were  unable  completely  to  carry 
out  these  instructions.  Great  difficulty  was  experienced  in 
securing  the  military  addresses  of  the  absent  voters.  It  was 
impossible  for  the  Post  Office  Department  to  deliver  mail  on 
regular  schedule  to  troops  that  were  being  sent  rapidly  into 
Germany  or  being  returned  to  England,  and  to  those  on  the 
more  distant  fronts.  In  order  to  give  more  time  for  the  return 
of  the  ballots,  the  time  between  the  closing  of  the  polls  and  the 
counting  of  the  ballots  was  extended  to  fourteen  days.  It 
appears  that  the  soldiers  themselves  took  very  little  interest 
in  the  election.  Sir  Auckland  Geddes,  Minister  of  National 
Service,  reported  that  in  spite  of  every  effort  to  permit  the 
soldiers  and  sailors  to  vote  there  was  a  great  apathy  among 
them,  that  few  returned  their  forms,  and  that  in  some  cases 
the  forms  were  used  to  light  fires.1  The  disinclination  to  use 
the  proxy  facilities  extended  to  the  officers  also,  many  report- 
ing that  they  did  not  care  to  vote. 

The  available  statistics  from  a  small  number  of  constituen- 
cies indicate  that  only  about  30  per  cent  of  the  absent  voters 
actually  voted.  The  Manchester  Guardian  estimated  that 
less  than  one  fifth  of  the  total  number  of  men  on  the  absent 
voters  list  recorded  their  votes.2  The  major  part  of  this  vote 
came  from  men  who  were  stationed  in  England  or  were  home 
on  leave  of  absence.  Many  ballots  were  returned  marked 
with  such  inscriptions  as,  "  The  fraud  of  a  hurried  election," 
"  Let  us  go  home  and  then  we  will  vote,"  "  We  will  soon  put 

1  The  Times,  November  21,  1918,  p.  8. 

*  Manchester  Guardian,  December  30,  1918,  p.  8. 


208  FRANCHISE  REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  [414 

things  straight  when  we  come  back,"  and  "  Demobilization 
first."  In  the  case  of  the  proxy  voters  on  the  more  distant 
fronts  only  a  very  small  per  cent  appointed  proxies.  So 
many  abnormal  elements  entered  into  this  election  that  it  is 
too  early  to  determine  whether  this  new  type  of  voting  will 
justify  the  expectations  of  its  promoters. 

One  of  the  arguments  advanced  against  proportional  repre- 
sentation was  that  it  would  increase  the  number  of  candidates ; 
but  even  without  this  system  of  voting  the  number  of  candi- 
dates in  this  election  was  unusually  large.  For  the  first  time 
three-cornered  contests  were  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 
For  the  600  contested  seats,  there  was  a  total  of  1,518 
candidates.  The  fact  that  the  size  of  the  electorate  was  more 
than  doubled,  that  the  distinctions  between  the  old  parties 
largely  disappeared,  that  the  old  electoral  boundaries  were  en- 
tirely changed,  and  that  the  women,  the  soldiers,  and  the 
sailors  votes  were  quite  incalculable,  account  in  part  at  least, 
for  this  great  increase  in  the  number  of  candidates  and  political 
groups.  The  supporters  of  proportional  representation  saw 
in  the  results  of  the  election  increased  argument  for  their 
cause  in  that  the  victory  of  the  Coalition  in  number  of  seats 
was  entirely  out  of  proportion  to  the  votes  they  received. 

The  conditions  under  which  the  first  election  was  held  were 
so  abnormal  that  no  dogmatic  statements  can  be  made  as  to  the 
operation  of  the  new  system.  Only  future  elections  can  re- 
veal the  permanent  changes  which  will  be  brought  about  by 
this  more  democratic  franchise  law. 


The  University  includes  the  following  : 

Columbia  College,  founded  in  1754,  and  Barnard  College,  founded  in 
1889,  offering  to  men  and  women,  respectively,  programs  of  study  which  may 
be  begun  either  in  September  or  February  and  which  lead  normally  in  from  three 
to  four  years  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts.  The  program  of  study  in  Co- 
lumbia College  makes  it  possible  for  a  well  qualified  student  to  satisfy  the  require- 
ments for  both  the  bachelor's  degree  and  a  professional  degree  in  law,  medicine, 
technology  or  education  in  five  to  seven  years  according  to  the  course. 

The  Faculties  of  Political  Science,  Philosophy  and  Pure  Science,  offering 
advanced  programs  of  study  and  investigation  leading  to  the  degrees  of  Master  of 
Arts  and  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 

The  Professional  Schools  of 
Law,  established  in  1858,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the  degree  of 

Bachelor  of  Laws  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Laws. 
Medicine.    The  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  established  in  1807,  offering 
two-year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  and  four- 
year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Medicine. 
Mines,  founded  in  1863,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the  degrees 

of  Engineer  of  Mines  and  of  Metallurgical  Engineer. 

Chemistry  and  Engineering,  set  apart  from  School  of  Mines  in  1896,  offering 
thrse-year  courses  leading  to  degrees  in  Civil,  Electrical,  Mechanical  ana 
Chemical  Engineering. 

Teachers  College,  founded  in  1888,  offering  in  its  School  of  Education  courses 
in  the  history  and  philosophy  of  education  and  the  theory  and  practice  of 
teaching,  leading  to  appropriate  diplomas  and  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of 
Science  in  Education  ;  and  in  its  School  of  Practical  Arts  founded  in  1912, 
courses  in  household  and  industrial  arts,  fine  arts,  music,  and  physical  train- 
ing leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Practical  Arts.  All  the 
Bourses  in  Teachers  College  are  open  to  men  and  women.  These  faculties 
offer  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  and  Master  of  Science. 
Architecture,  offering  a  program  of  indeterminate  length  leading  to  the  degree 

of  Bachelor  of  Architecture  and  Master  of  Science. 

Journalism,  founded  in  1912,  offering  a  two-year  course  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Literature  in  Journalism.  The  regular  requirement  for  ad- 
mission to  this  course  is  two  years  of  college  work. 

Business,  founded  in  1916,  offering  two  and  three-year  courses  in  business  train- 
ing leading  to  appropriate  degrees. 
Dentistry,  founded  in  1917,  offering   four-year  courses  leading  to  appropriate 

degrees. 

Pharmacy.  The  New  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  founded  in  1831,  offering 
courses  of  two,  three  and  four  years  leading  to  appropriate  certificates  and 


In  the  Summer  Session  the  University  offers  courses  giving  both  general  and 
professional  training  which  may  be  taken  either  with  or  without  regard  to  an 
academic  degree  or  diploma. 

Through  its  system  of  University  Extension  the  University  offers  many  courses 
of  study  to  persons  unable  otherwise  to  receive  academic  training. 

The  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  provides  lectures,  concerts,  readings  and 
recitals — approximately  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  number — in  a  single  season. 

The  price  of  the  University  Catalogue  is  twenty-five  cents  postpaid.  Detailed 
information  regarding  the  work  in  any  department  will  be  furnished  without 
charge  upon  application  to  the  Secretary  of  Columbia  University,  New  York, 


Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


THIRTY-THIRD  SERIES.— 1915.— $4.00 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 
I.  Money  and  Transportation  in  Maryland,  1720-1765.    By  CLARENCE  P. 

GOULD.     75  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

II.  The  Financial  Administration  of  the  Colony  of  Virginia.     By  PERCY 
SCOTT  FLIPPIN.     50  cents  ;  cloth,  75  cents. 

III.  The  Helper  and  American  Trade  Unions.    By  JOHN  H.  ASHWORTH.     75 

cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

IV.  The  Constitutional  Doctrines  of  Justice  Harlan.    By  FLOYD  BARZILIA 

CLARK.    $1.00  ;  cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-FOURTH  SERIES.— 1916.— $4.00 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 
I.  The  Boycott  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  Lio  WOLMAN.    $1.00;  cloth, 

$1.25. 
II.  The  Postal  Power  of  Congress.    By  LINDSAY  ROGERS.   $1.00;  cloth, $1.25. 

III.  The  Control  of  Strikes  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  G.  M.  JANES.     75 

cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

IV.  State  Administration  in  Maryland.    By  JOHN  L.  DONALDSON.     $1.00; 

cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-FIFTH  SERIES.— 1917.— $4.00 

(Complete  in  three  numbers) 
I.  The  Virginia  Committee  System  and  the  American  Revolution.    By  J. 

M.  LEAKE.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

II.  The  Organizability  of  Labor.    By  W.  O.  WEYFORTH.     $1.50. 
IH.  Party  Organization  and  Machinery  in  Michigan  since  1890.    By  A.  C. 
MILLSPAUGH.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1,25. 

THIRTY-SIXTH  SERIES.— 1918.— $4.00 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 

I.  The  Standard  of  Living  in  Japan.    By  K.  MORIMOTO.    $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 
II.  Sumptuary  Law  in  Nurnburg.   By  K.  R.  GREENFIELD.   $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

III.  The  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  State  Citizenship.    By  R.  HOWELL. 

$1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

IV.  French  Protestantism,  1559-1562.     By  C.  G.  KELLY.     $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

THIRTY-SEVENTH  SERIES.— 1919.— $4.25 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 

I.  Unemployment  and  American  Trade  Unions.  By  D.  P.  SMELSER,  JR.  $1.25. 
II.  The  Labor  Law  of  Maryland.  By  M.  H.  LAOCHHEIMER.  $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

III.  The  American  Colonization  Society,  1817-1840.    E.  L.  Fox.    $2.00;  cloth, 

$2.25. 

IV.  The  Obligation  of  Contracts  Clause  of  the  United  States  Constitution. 

By  W.  B.  HUNTING.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-EIGHTH  SERIES.— 1920.— $4.25 

(Complete  in  three  numbers) 
I.  The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.    By  W.  L.  WANLASS. 

$1.25;  cloth,  $1.75. 
II.  The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron,  Steel  and  Tin  Workers.    By  J.  S. 

ROBINSON.     $1.50;  cloth,  $2.00. 

III.  The  Employment  of  the  Plebiscite  in  the  Determination  of  Sovereignty . 
By  J.  MATTERN.    $1.50. 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,    :    :    :    :    Baltimore,  Md. 


Columbia  University  Press  Publications 

CONSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.      By 

WOODROW  WILSON,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  United  States.     Pp.  vii -{-236. 

OUR  CHIEF  MAGISTRATE  AND  HIS  POWERS.  By  WILLIAM  HOWARD 
TAFT,  Twenty-seventh  President  of  the  United  States.  Pp.  vii  -(-  165. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  POWER  AND  WORLD  AFFAIRS.  By  GEORGE  SUTH- 
ERLAND, former  United  States  Senator  from  Utah.  Pp.  vii  -f-  202. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MODERN  STATE.  By  DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  LL.D.,  late  American  Ambas- 
sador to  Germany.  Pp.  ix-(-2i4.  Reprinted  with  new  Preface. 

THE  BUSINESS   OF  CONGRESS.     By  SAMUEL  W.   McCALL,  Governor  of 

Massachusetts.     Pp.  vii  -)-  215. 
THE  COST  OF  OUR  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT.    By  HENRY  JONES  FORD, 

Professor  of  Politics  in  Princeton  University.     Pp.  xv-(-  147. 
POLITICAL    PROBLEMS   OF  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT.     By    ALBERT 

SHAW,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  the  Review  of  Reviews.     Pp.  vii -f-  268. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS  FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CITIZEN.  By  JEREMIAH  W.  JENKS,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Gov- 
ernment and  Public  Administration  in  New  York  University.  Pp.  xviii-f-  187. 

TEE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  JOHN  CHIPMAN  GRAY, 
LL.D.,  late  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University.  Pp.  xii  -(-  332. 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  FRED- 
ERICK POLLOCK,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.  Pp.  vii+  141. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  His  Permanent  Influence  on  American  Institutions. 
By  JOHN  SHARP  WILLIAMS,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Mississippi.  Pp.  ix  -f-  330. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  COURTENAY  ILBERT,  G.  C.  B., 
Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Pp.  viii  -f-  209. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATION.  By  HARLAN  F.  STONE,  LL.D.,  Dean  of 
the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University.  Pp.  vii  -|-  232. 

AMERICAN  CITY  PROGRESS  AND  THE  LAW.  By  HOWARD  LEE  Mc- 
BAIN,  Ph.D.,  Eaton  Professor  of  Municipal  Science  and  Administration,  Co- 
lumbia University.  Pp.  viii  -(-  269.!  , .. 

Uniformly  bound,  12mo,  cloth.    Each,  $2.00  net. 


THE  LAW  AND  THE  PRACTICE  OF  MUNICIPAL  HOME  RULE.  By  HOW- 
ARD LEE  McBAiN,  Eaton  Professor  of  Municipal  Science  and  Administration 
in  Columbia  University.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xviii  -(-  724.  Price,  $5.00  net. 

STUDIES  IN  SOUTHERN  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  Inscribed  to  William 
Archibald  Dunning,  Lieber  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Philosophy  in 
Columbia  University,  by  his  former  pupils,  the  authors.  A  collection  of  fifteen 
essays.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  viii  -f-  294.  $3.00  net. 

THE  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  BROTHERHOOD  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS.  By  SIR  CHARLES  WALSTON  (WALDSTEIN),  M.  A.,  Litt.  D.,  for- 
merly  Professor  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  I2mo,  boards,  pp.  xxiii-224, 
|i.6o  net. 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LEMOKE  &  BUEOHNER,  Agents 
30-32  East  Twentieth  Street,  New  York  City 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO. 


THE  VILLAGE  LABOURER,  1760-1832:  A  Study  in  the  Government  of  Eng- 
land before  the  Reform  Bill.  By  J.  L.  and  Barbara  Hammond.  8vo.  $2.25 
net. 

"  There  is  not  a.  chapter  in  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hammond's  book  which  fails  to  throw 
new  light  on  enclosures  or  on  the  administration  of  the  poor  laws  and  the  game 
laws,  and  on  the  economic  and  social  conditions  of  the  period. ...  A  few  other 
studies  of  governing  class  rule  before  1867  as  searchingly  analytical  as  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Hammond's  book  will  do  much  to  weaken  this  tradition  and  to  make 
imperative  much  recasting  of  English  History  from  1688."— 

— Am.  Political  Science  Review. 

THE  TOWN  LABOURER,  1760-1832:  The  New  Civilization.  By  J.  L.  Ham- 
inond  and  Barbara  Hammond,  Authors  of  "The  Village  Labourer.  1760-1832: 
A  Study  in  the  Government  of  England  before  the  Reform  Bill."  8vo. 
$2.35  net. 

This  volume  is  the  first  part  of  a  study  of  the  Industrial  Revolution.  It 
will  be  completed  by  another  volume  giving  in  detail  the  history  of  the  work- 
people in  various  industries,  with  a  full  account  of  the  Luddite  rising  and  of 
the  disturbances  connected  with  the  adventures  of  the  agent  Provocateur  Oliver. 

"  Never  has  the  story  been  told  with  such  masterly  precision,  or  with 
such  illuminating  reference  to  the  original  sources  of  the  time,  as  in  this  book 
....  The  perspective  and  proportion  are  so  perfect  that  the  life  of  a  whole 
era,  analyzed  searchingly  and  profoundly,  passes  before  your  eyes  as  you  read." 
— The  Dial. 

"  A  brilliant  and  important  achievement.  '  The  Town  Labourer'  will  rank 
as  an  indispensable  source  of  revelation  and  of  inspiration."— TTte  Nation 
(London). 

BLACK  AND  WHITE  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES:  A  Study  of  the  Race 
Problem  in  the  United  States  from  a  South  African  Point  of  View.  By  Mau- 
rice S.  Evans.  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

"This  is  a  sequel  to  the  author's  earlier  volume,  BLACK  AND  WHITE  IN 
SOUTH  EAST  Ar RICA.  It  is  a  product  of  the  same  searching  insight  and  the 
same  candid  observation." — American  Journal  of  Sociology. 

BLACK  AND  WHITE  IN  SOUTH  EAST  AFRICA:  A  Study  in  Sociology. 
By  Maurice  S.  Evans.  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

"  An  exceedingly  lucid  statement  of  the  arduous  and  intricate  problem 
which  lies  before  the  people  of  South  Africa  in  dealing  with  the  native  races." 
—  The  Nation. 

Second  Edition,  brought  up  to  the  Spring  of  1919. 

THE  CONTROL  OF  THE  DRINK  TRADE  IN  BRITAIN.  A  Contribution  to 
National  Efficiency  during  the  Great  War,  1915-1918.  By  Henry  Carter.  With 
Illustrations,  Charts,  and  Diagrams,  and  a  new  Preface  by  Lord  D'Abernon 
8vo.  $1.75  net. 

His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  says : 

"  The  whole  position  concerning  intemperance  has  been  fundamentally 
altered  by  the  war.  I  would  very  earnestly  and  seriously  ask  any  who  remain 
unconvinced,  either  as  to  the  necessity  or  the  practicability  of  such  changes, 
to  read  one  book — sane,  cool,  lucid,  and  absolutely  well-informed — '  The  Con- 
trol of  the  Drink  Trade.'  " 


Fourth  Avenue  and  30th  Street,  NEW  YORK 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO. 

THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  INDUSTRIAL  ENTERPRISES. 
With  Special  Reference  to  Factory  Practice.  By  EDWARD  D. 
JONES,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Commerce  and  Industry,  University  of  Mich- 
igan. With  Illustrations  and  Bibliographies.  Large  12010.  $2.35 
net.  (Fifth  Impression). 

"To  the  head  of  any  industrial  organization,  and  especially  to  the  executives  of  those 
which  have  not  long  been  created  and  are  still  faced  with  many  of  the  problems  dis- 
cussed in  the  volume,  it  should  be  particularly  useful."—  Wall  Street  Journal. 

THE  WORKS  MANAGER  TO-DAY:  An  Address  Prepared  for 
a  Series  of  Private  Gatherings  of  Works  Managers.  By  SIDNEY 
WEBB,  Professor  of  Public  Administration  in  the  University  of  London 
(School  of  Economic  and  Political  Science).  Crown  8vo.  $1.35  net 
An  examination,  in  easy  lecture  form,  of  the  problems  of  management 
of  any  considerable  industrial  enterprise,  especially  in  relation  to  the  or- 
ganization of  labor,  methods  of  remuneration,  "  Scientific  Management" 
and  "  Welfare  Work,"  piecework  and  premium  bonus  systems,  restriction 
of  output  and  increase  of  production,  the  maintenance  of  discipline,  etc. 

THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     By 

ERNEST  LUDLOW  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economics  in 
the  University  of  Illinois.  With  26  Maps  and  95  Illustrations.  Crown 

8vo,    £2  oo. 

READINGS  IN  THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  By  E.  L.  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  and  C.  M.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D., 
of  the  University  of  Illinois.  8vo.  $3.20. 

A  source  book  which  collects  in  one  volume  contemporary  material 
illustrating  the  most  important  economic  developments  in  the  country's 
history.  The  material  is  arranged  as  follows :  Eight  chapters  deal  with 
the  United  States  before  1808;  nine  with  the  period  of  1808-1860;  and 
six  with  the  period  since  1 860. 

RAILROADS.  In  two  volumes.  By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Ph.D. 
Nathaniel  Ropes  Professor  of  Economics  in  Harvard  University,  author 
of  "  Railway  Problems,"  etc. 

Vol.  I.  RATES  AND  REGULATION,  with  41  maps  and  diagrams. 

8vo.     |4-oo  net. 
Vol.  II.  FINANCE  AND   ORGANIZATION,  with  29  maps  and 

diagrams.     8vo.    £4.00  net. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  ECONOMICS:  with  Special  Reference  to  Amer- 
ican Conditions.  By  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  LL.D.  McVickar 
Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  Columbia  University.  Eighth  Edi- 
tion, Revised  (1919).  $3.00  net. 

AN   ESSAY    ON    MEDIAEVAL   ECONOMIC   TEACHING.     By 

GEORGE  O'BRIEN,  Litt.D.,  author  of  "  The  Economic  History  of  Ireland 
in  the  Seventeenth  Century,"  "The  Economic  History  of  Ireland  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  etc."  $4-75  net. 

It  is  the  aim  of  this  essay  to  examine  and  present  in  as  concise  a  form 
as  possible  the  principles  and  rules  which  guided  and  regulated  men  in 
their  economic  and  social  relations  during  the  period  known  as  the 
Middle  Ages. 


Fourth  Avenue  and  30th  Street,  NEW  YORK 


P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Ltd. 

WEALTH :  A  BRIEF  EXAMINATION  OF   THE  CAUSES  OF  ECO- 
NOMIC WELFARE 

By  EDWIN  CANNAN,  M,  A.,  LL.D. ,  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  London.     Second  Edition,  with  Index.     6s. 
Times:  '•  A  concise  and  instructive  book." 

Glasgow  Herald :  "  Mr.  Cannan  is  probably  the  most  trenchant,  suggestive,  and  original  of 
living  economists. " 

MONEY  :  ITS  CONNEXION  WITH  RISING  AND  FALLING  PRICES 

By  EDWIN  CANNAN,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  the 
University  of  London.  Third  Edition.  2s.  6d. 

The  Scottish  Bankers'  Magazine : "  The  moral  of  Dr.  Cannan's  book  is  that  if  people  dislike 
rise  in  prices,  they  should  insist  upon  adequate  limitation  of  money  supply.  The  book 
before  us  is  the  work  of  one  well  versed  in  the  logic  of  economies." 

GOLD  PRICES,  AND  THE  WITWATERSRAND 

By  R.  A.  LEHFELDT,  Professor  of  Economics  at  the  South  African  School  of 

Mines  and  Technology,  Johannesburg.     5s. 

Chapter  I,  The  Gold  Supply ;  II,  The  Requirements  of  Commerce :  III,  Paper  Substitutes  ; 
IV,  Influence  of  the  War ;  V,  P9sition  of  the  Witwatersrand ;  Appendix :  Statistical  Tables. 
Appendix :  The  Valuation  of  Mines. 

THE  PAPER  POUND  OF  1797-1821 

Reprint  of  the  report  of  1810  to  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  High  Price  of 
Gold  Bullion.  With  an  Introduction  by  EDWIN  CANNAN,  M.A.,  LL.D.  5s. 

The  Scottish  Bankers'  Magazine : ' '  Prof.  Cannan's  book,  which  has  the  merit  of  the  multum 
in  parvo,  takes  us  back  to  the  time  of  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  and  his  historic  Introduction 
to  the  Bullion  Report  of  1810— the  text  of  which  forms  the  greater  part  of  the  volume— is 
well  deserving  the  attention  of  all  students  of  economics." 

WAR  FINANCE 

By  J.  SHIELD  NICHOLSON,  M.A.,  Sc.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Econ- 
omy in  the  University  of  Edinburgh.  Second  Edition,  with  three  additional 
Chapters.  12s.  6d. 

Daily  Telegraph:  "...  These  essays  are  very  well  worth  study, and  the  main  contention 
that  the  root  evil  of  OUT  financial  policy  has  been  the  extravagant  payments  made  by  the 
State  for  all  the  services  required  by  the  war  cannot  be  gainsaid. ..." 

INFLATION 

By  J.  SHIELD  NICHOLSON,  M.A.,  Sc.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Econ- 
omy in  the  University  of  Edinburgh.  3s.  6d. 

Times :  "  Professor  Nicholson  has  now  done  a  public  service To  the  general  reader, 

who  desires  to  obtain  as  simple  a  view  as  possible  of  the  economic  considerations  bearing  on 
the  very  practical  question  of  the  mischief  involved  in  "  inflation  "  (whether  .of  the  cur- 
rency, or  even  more  fundamentally  of  credit),  the  value  of  this  little  book  is  that  it  brings 
them  succinctly  together." 

HISTORY  OF  THE  BANK  OF  ENGLAND 

By  Professor  A.  ANDREADES,  of  the  University  of  Athens.     Translated  from 
the  French  by  CHRISTABEL  MEREDITH.     With  a  Preface  by  Professor  H.  S. 
FOXWELL,  M.A.     12s.  6d. 
Banker's  Magazine ;  "  This  fascinating  book  should  be  on  the  bookshelf  of  every  student." 

Orchard  House,  2-4  Great  Smith  Street 
Westminster,  England 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

edited  by 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 

VOLUME  I,  1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    396pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  In  Statistics. 

By  WALTER  F.  WILLCOX,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

9.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  In  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 
Times  to  the  McKlnley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  JOHN  DEAN  Goss,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

8.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GBORGB  ASHTON  BLACK,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  H.  J.  DOUGLAS,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  H,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [5]  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village. 

By  ISAAC  A.  HOURWICH,  Ph.D.    (Out  ofprint\. 

2.  [6]  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  SAMUEL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 
8.  [7]  Special  Assessments ;  A  Study  In  Municipal  Finance.  * 

By  VICTOR  ROSBWATBR,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.     Price,  f  i.oo. 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465  pp.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [8]  *Hlstory  of  Elections  In  American  Colonies. 

By  CORTLAND  F.  BISHOP,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 
£.  [9]  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  GEORGE  L.  BBBR,  A.  M.     ( Out  of  print.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438  pp.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [1O]  Financial  History  of  Virginia. 

By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLBY,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 
8.  II 11  *The  Inheritance  Tax.         By  MAX  WEST,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price.  $2.00- 

8.  [13]  Hlsto^v  of  Taxation  In  Vermont.    By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph  D.  (Out  of  print). 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [13]  Double  Taxation  In  the  United  States. 

By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

9.  [14]  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  WILLIAM  BONDY.  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
8.  [16]  Municipal  Government  In  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  DBLOS  F.  WILCOX.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50 1  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

fl6]  History  of  Proprietary  Government  In  Pennsylvania. 

By  WILLIAM  ROBERT  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [17]  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Commonwealth  Gov- 
ernment In  Massachusetts.  By  HARRY  A.  GUSHING,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
*.  [18]*Speculatlon  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States 

By  HENRY  CROSBY  EMBRY,  Ph.D.    Price,  (1.50. 

VOLUME  Vin,  1896-98.    551  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [19]  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  CHARLES  ERNEST  CHADSBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi.oo. 

3.  [SO]    Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  In  State  Educational  Administra- 

tion. By  WILLIAM  CLARENCE  WBBSTBK,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  [91]  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  FRANCIS  R.  STARK,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi  oo. 

4.  [22]  Public  Administration  In  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central 

to  L,oual  Activity.  By  ROBERT  HARYBY  WHITTBN,  Ph.D.    Price,  ji.oo. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [83]  'English  Ix>cal  Government  of  To-day.    A  Study  of  the  Relations  of 

Central  and  Local  Government.  By  MILO  ROY  MALTBIE,  Ph.D.    Price,  £2.00. 

2.  [24]  German  Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  JAMBS  W.  CROOK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
8.  [25]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  New  York  State. 

By  JOHN  ARCHIBALD  FAIRLIB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    409  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [86]  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

By  FRBD  S.  HALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00 

2.  [27]  'Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  Ihe  Union. 

By  FRANK  GREENE  BATES,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [38].  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  In  the  American  Com-. 

monwealths.  By  CLEMENT  MOORE  LACBY  SITES,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

f!f  9]  The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  ADNA  FBRRIN  WBBKR  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XH,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

y.»  [3O]  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  WILLIAM  MAXWKLL  BURKE,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.00. 
9,  [31.]  Colonial  Immigration  Laws. 

By  EDWARD  EMERSON  PROPER,  A.M.     Price,  75  cents. 

8.  [32]  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  In  the  United  States. 

By  WILLIAM  HENRY  GLASSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

4.  [33]  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  CHARLES  K.  MBRRIAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XIII,  1901.    570  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [34]  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  ISIDOR  LOBB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

9.  [35]  Political  Nativlsm  In  New  York  State. 

By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
3.  [38]  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.        By  EDWIN  C.  WOOLLBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

it.  [87]  Loyallsm  In  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  ALEXANDER  CLARBNCB  FLICK,  Ph.D.    Price.  (2.00, 

2.  [38]  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  ALLAN  H.  WILLBTT,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [39]  The  Eastern  Question:  A  Study  In  Diplomacy. 

By  STEPHEN  P.  H.  DUGGAN.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  Paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[4O]  Crime  In  Its  Relation  to  Social  Progress.       By  ARTHUR  CLEVELAND  HALL,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [41]  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  In  Japan. 

By  YBTARO  KINOSITA,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [42]  The  Employment  of  Women  In  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  MABEL  KURD  WILLBT,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [43]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  Ohio. 

By  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $4.00. 

1.  [44]  "Centralizing  Tendencies  In  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WILLIAM  A.  RAWLES,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

2,  [45]  Principles  of  Justice  In  Taxation.    By  STEPHEN  F.  WBSTON,  Ph.D.    Price,  fz.oo. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [46]  The  Administration  of  Iowa.       By  HAROLD  MARTIN  BOWMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [47]  Tnrgot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  ROBBRT  P.  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [48]  Hanover  and  Prussia,  1795-18O3.       By  GUY  STANTON  FORD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [49]  Joslah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  WALTKR  ERNEST  CLARK.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [5OJ  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Value  In  English  Polit- 

ical Economy.  By  ALBERT  C.  WHITAKBR,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [51]  Trad*  Unions  and  the  Law  la  New  York. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $3.50. 

1.  [58]  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  In  England. 

By  CHARLES  AUSTIN  BEARD,  Ph.D.    Price,  ( 1.50. 

2,  [58]  A  History  of  Military  Government  In  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of 

the  United  States.  By  DAVID  V.  THOMAS,  Ph.D.    Price,  £2.00. 

VOLUME  XXT,  1904.    746  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [54]  "Treaties,  their  Making;  and  Enforcement. 

By  SAMUBL  B.  CRANDALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [55]  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Block. 

By  THOMAS  JESSE  JONES,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 
8.  [56]  Pre-Malthnslan  Doctrines  of  Population. 

By  CHAHLBS  E.  STANGELAND,  Ph.D.    Price,  f2-5°- 


VOLUME  XXII,  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[57]  The  Historical  Development  of  the  Poor  Law  of  Connecticut. 

By  EDWAKD  W.  CAFBN,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XXIII,  1905.    594  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [58]  The  Economics  of  Land  Tenure  In  Georgia. 

By  ENOCH  MARVIN  BANKS,  Ph.D.     Price,  f  i.oo. 
3.  [50]  Mistake  In  Contract.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

By  EDWIN  C.  MCK.BAG,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  i.oo. 

3.  [6O]  Combination  In  the  Mining  Industry. 

By  HKNRY  R.  MUSSBY,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.00. 

4.  [61]  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Government. 

By  STELLA  KRAMER.  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [62]  The  Place  of  Magic  In  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  LYNN  THORNDIKB,  Ph.D.  Price,  fi. go. 

2.  [63]  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodoslan  Code. 

By  WILLIAM  K.  BOYD,  Ph.D.  Price,  fi.oo. 

3.  [64]  *The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  SBIJI  G.  HISHIDA,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00, 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [65]  'Municipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities. 

By  O.  L.  POND,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

2.  [66]  The  Budget  In  the  American  Commonwealths. 

By  EUGENE  E.  AGGER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i. 50. 
8.  [67]  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  CHARLES  C.  WILLIAMSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1907.    559  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [68]  Trade  and  Currency  In  Early  Oregon. 

By  JAMBS  H.  GILBERT,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00, 

5.  [601  Luther's  Table  Talk.  By  PRESERVED  SMITH,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

3.  [7OJ  The  Tobacco  Industry  In  the  United  States. 

By  MEYER  JACOBSTEIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1  50. 

4.  [71]  Social  Democracy  and  Population. 

Py  ALVAN  A.  TBNNEY,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVH,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [78]  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole. 

By  NORRIS  A.  BRISCO,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [78]  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

By  ABRAHAM  BBRGLUND,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i  50. 
3.  [74]  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  In  Massachusetts. 

By  HARRY  G.  FRIEDMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVm.  1907.    564  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [75]  DeWltt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  In  New  York. 

By  HOWARD  LEB  McBAiN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [76]  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

By  ELMER  I.  MILLER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


3.  [77]  The  Distribution  of  Ownership. 

By  JOSEPH  HARDING  UNDERWOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXIX,  1908.    703  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

t'ly  New  England  Towns.  By  An 

7O~J  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province. 


1.  [78J  EarlyNew  England  Towns.  _  By  ANNK  BUSH  MACL.BAR,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.50. 


By  WILLIAM  H.  FRY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.    712  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50  ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

[8O]  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664-1738.  By  EDWIN  P.  TANNER,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXI,  190&    575  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [81]  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  WELD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [88]  Ohio  before  185O.  By  ROBERT  E.  CHADDOCK,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.jo. 

8.  [83]  Consanguineous  Marriages  In  the  American  Population. 

By  GEORGE  B.  Louis  ARNRR,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 
4.  [84]  Adolphe  Qnetelet  as  Statistician.      By  FRANK  H.  HANKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1908.    705  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

85]  The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers. 

By  BERTHA  HAVKN  PUTNAM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXHI,  1908-1909.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [86]  Factory  Legislation  In  Maine.  By  E.  STAGG  WHITIN.A.B.    Price,  Ji.cxx 

9.  [87 J  'Psychological  Interpretations  of  Society. 

By  MICHAEL  M.  DAVIS,  Jr.,  Ph.D.     Price,  fe.oo. 

3.  [88  j  *An  Introduction  to  the  Source^  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

"    By  CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


0 


VOLUME  XXXIV,  1909.    628  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 


1.  [89]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Development  In  the  Middle  West. 

By  WILLIAM  F.  GBPHAKT,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.o*. 
t.  [OO]  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation. 

^        By  JACOB  SALWYM  SCHAPIRO,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.«s. 
S.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  PHILIP  A.  PARSONS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.30. 

VOLUME  XXXV.  1909.    568  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [93]  The  Conflict  over  the  Judicial  Powers  In  the  United  States  to  187O. 

By  CHARLES  GROVB  UAINES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $  1.50. 
*.  [93]  A  Study  of  the  Population  of  Manhattan vllle. 

By  HOWARD  BROWN  WOOLSTON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 
S.  [94]  *  Divorce:  A  Study  In  Social  Causation. 

By  JAMBS  P.  LICHTENBRRGBR,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.59. 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  f98]  'Reconstruction  in  Texas.     By  CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDBLL,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.50. 
9.  [90]  *  The  Transition  In  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Commonwealth. 

By  CHARLES  RAMSDBLL  LINGLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVH,  1910.    606  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  In  Local  Freight  Discriminations. 

By  JOHN  MAURICE  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.15. 
9.  [98]  L,egal  Development  In  Colonial  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  J.  HILKKY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

8.  [99]  •  Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  HOWARD  W.  ODUM,  Ph.D.     Prise,  |t.o«. 

VOLUME  XXXVIII,  1910.    463  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [1OO]  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  ROBERT  TUDOR  HILL,  Ph.D.     Price,  Jt.oo. 

9.  [1O1]  Organism  Ic  Theories  of  the  State. 

By  FRANCIS  \V.  Coxut,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.jo. 

VOLUME  XXXTX,  1910-1911.    651  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [  1O2  ]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  WILLIAM  SMITH  MURRAY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.5*. 
8.  [108]  Political  History  of  Nev<  York  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 

War.  By  SIDNEY  DAVID  BKUMMBR,  Ph.  D.    Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O4]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  In  China. 

By  HAWKLINC  L.  YEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 
8.  [105]  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  GRORGB  H.  PORTBR,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.75. 

8.  [1O6]  The  Territorial  Basis  of  Government  under  the  State  Constitutions. 

By  ALFRED  ZANTZINGBK  REBD,  Ph.D.    Price, f  1.7$. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[  1O7]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  EDGAR  JACOB  FISHES,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLII,  1911.    400pp.    Price, cloth,  $3.00;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[1O8]  Attitude  of  American  Courts  In  Labor  Cases. 

By  GBORGB  GOP.HAM  GROAT,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLIII,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

i .  [1O9]  'Industrial  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  In  New  York  City. 

By  EDWARD  EWING  PRATT,  Ph.D.    Price,  ft.oo. 
1.  [HOJ  Education  and  the  Mores.  By  F.  STUART  CBAPIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cent*. 

8.  till]  The  British  Consuls  In  the  Confederacy. 

By  MILLEDGE  L.  BONHAM,  JR.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.0*. 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV,  1911.    745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00 ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

(119  and  118]  The  Economic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  CHEN  HUAN-CHANO,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLVT,  1911-1912.    623  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50.    -> 

1.  [114]  The  Rlcardlan  Socialists.  BY  ESTHER  LOWBNTHAL,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.o* 

9.  [115]  Ibrahim  Pasha,  Grand  Vizier  of  'Suleiman,  the  Magnificent. 

BY  HBSTBR  DONALDSON  JBNKINS,  Ph.D.  Price,  gi.oo 
tf.  [116]  'Syndicalism  In  France. 

BY  Louis  LKVINB,  Ph.D.    Second  edition,  1914.  Price,  f  1.50, 

4.  [117]    A  Hoosler  Village.  BY  NEWELL  LBBOY  SIMS,  Ph.D,  Price.  11.50, 


VOLUME  XL VII,  1912.    544  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  The  Politics  of  Michigan,  1865-1878. 

BY  HARRIETTS  M.  DILLA,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
9.  [1 19]  *The  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

BY  ROT  G.  BLAKKY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XL VIII,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [ISO]  Isldor  of  Seville.  BY  ERNEST  BREHAUT,  Ph.  D.    Price.  J*.oo. 

9.  [121]  Progress  and  Uniformity  In  Child-Labor  Legislation. 

By  WILLIAM  FIELDING  OGBURN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [188]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  BY  WALTER  PHKLPS  HALL.  Price,  fa.oo. 

ft.  [188]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  .Law  of  Corporations. 

BY  ARTHUR  K.  KUHN,  Ph.D.  Price,  |i.jo. 
S.  [184]  *The  Negro  at  Work  In  New  York  City. 

BY  GEORGE  E.  HAYNES.  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [185]  *The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.      'By  YAI  YUB  Tsu,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [186]  "The  Allen  in  China.  BY  Vi.  KYUIN  WELLINGTON  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price.fa.jo. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [187]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South. 

BY  LBONARD  5.  BLAKBY,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [188]  'Provincial  and  Local  Taxation  in  Canada. 

BY  SOLOMON  VINBBBKC,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
51.  [189]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  FRANK  HATCH  STRBIGHTOPP,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
S.  [13O]  *The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  LHI,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[  13 1]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  in  Florida.        By  W.  W.  DAYIS,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.    604pp.    Price,  cloth.  $4.50. 

1.  [138]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  ARNOLD  JOHNSON  LIE~,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 
9.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  BLAINB  FREE  MOORB,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

ft.  [184]  "Indian  Slavery  In  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States.  By  ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [135]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  Tork. 

By  HOMER  A.  STBBBINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  £4.00. 

8.  [136]    *The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

By  LEON  H.  CANFIBLD,  Ph.D.    Price,   $1.50. 

VOLUME  LVI,  1913.    406  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange.  19O4-19O7. 

By  ALGERNON  ASHBURNBR  OSBORNK.      Price,  $1.50.  . 

2.  [188]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  OSWALD  WHITMAN  KNAUTH,  Ph.D.     Pnce»  $a.oo. 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.    670pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [189]  *The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  ROBERT  MOSES.  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

9.  [14O]  The  Financial  History  of  New  York  State. 

By  DON  C.  SOWERS.    Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LVIII,  1914.    684  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[141]  Reconstruction  in  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DB  ROULHAC  HAMILTON,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.    625  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [148]  The  Development  of  Modern  Turkey  by  means  of  its  Press. 

By  AHMED  EMIN,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 
8.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  in  China,  1614-1911. 

By  SHAO-KWAN  CHBN,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $1.00. 
8.  [144]  The  Currency  Problem  in  China.  By  WEN  PIN  WEI,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.as, 

4.  f  146]  *Jewlsh  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  SAMUSL  JOSEPH,  Ph.D.    Price, 


VOLUME  LX.    1914.    516pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  I  146]  "Constantino  the  Great  and  Christianity. 

By  CHRISTOPHER  BUSH  COLBMAN,  Ph.D.     Price,  Jla.oo. 

3.  [147]  The  Establishment  of  Christianity  and  tlie  Proscription  of    Pa- 
ganism. By  MAUD  ALINB  HUTTMAN,  Ph.D.     Price,  £2.00. 

VOLUME  LXI.    1914.    496  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4  00. 

1.  [148]  *The  Railway  Conductors:  A  Study  in  Organized  Labor. 

By  EDWIN  CLYDE  ROBBINS.     Price,  161.50. 

2.  [149]  *The  Finances  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

By  VIN-CH'U  MA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LXII.    1914.    414pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

[15O]  The  Journal  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  on  Reconstrnctlon. 
39th  Congress,  1866—1867.  By  BENJAMIN  B.  KBNDRICK,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LXIII.    1914.    561  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4-00. 

1.  [161]  Emile  Dnrkhelm's  Contributions  to  Sociological  Theory. 

By  CHARLES  ELMBR  GEHLKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [153]  The  Nationalization  of  Railways  in  Japan. 

By  TOSHIHARU  WATARAI,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 
3.  [168]  Population:  A  Study  in  Malthuslanism. 

By  WARREN  S.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  LXIV.    1915.    646  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [154]  *Reconstruction  in  Georgia.  By  C.  MILDRED  THOMPSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  3.00. 

2.  [155]  *The  Review  of  American  Colonial  Legislation  by  the   King   in 

Council.  By  ELMER  BEECHER  RUSSELL,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  LXV.    1915.    524pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [156]  *The  Sovereign  Council  of  New  France 

By  RAYMOND  Du  Bois  CAHALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.25, 

2.  [157]  'Scientific  Management  (2nd.  ed.  1918). 

By  HORACE  B.  DRURY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00 

VOLUME  LXVI.    1915.    655  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [158]  *The  Recognition  Policy  of  the  United  States. 

By  JULIUS  GOEBBL,  JR.,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

2.  [159]  Railway  Problems  In  China.  By  CHIH  Hsu,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.50. 

3.  [  16O]  The  Boxer  Rebellion.  By  PAUL  H.  CLEMENTS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.0*. 

VOLUME  LXVII.    1916.    538  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [161]  *Russlan  Sociology.  By  JULIUS  F.  HECKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.so. 

3.  [163]  State  Regulation  of  Railroads  in  the  South. 

By  MAXWELL  FERGUSON,  A.  M.,  LL.B.    Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  LXVIII.    1916.    518pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[168]  The  Origins  of  the  Islamic  State.        By  PHILIP  K.  Him,  Ph.D.    Price,  $4.00. 

VOLUME  LXIX.    1916.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [164]  Railway  Monopoly  and  Rate  Regulation. 

By  ROBERT  J.  McFALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2  oo. 

2.  [165]  The  Butter  Industry  In  the  United  States. 

By  EDWARD  WIEST,  Ph  D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  LXX.    1916.    540  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[166]  Mohammedan  Theories  of  Finance 

By  NICOLAS  P.  AGHNIDBS,  Ph.D.    Price,  £4.00. 

VOLUME  LXXI.    1916.    476  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

li  [167]  The  Commerce  of  Louisiana  during  the  French  Regime,  1699—1763. 

By  N.  M.  MILLER  SURREY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.50. 

VOLUME  LXXII.    1916.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  r!68]  American  Men  of  Letters:  Their  Nature  and  Nurture. 

By  EDWIN  LBAVITT  CLARKE,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.so. 

3.  [169]  The  Tariff  Problem  In  China.  By  CHIH  CHV,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
3.  [17OJ  The  Marketing  of  Perishable  Food  Products. 

By  A.  B.  Adams,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


f 


1  1 


GAYLORD 


PRINTED  IN  U.S.A 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  I 


001  042  620     3 


-UNIVERSITY  OF  CA    R  VERS  DE  L  BRARY  ^ 

3  121000761  7879 


